Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Paul

The critical importance of teaching evolution

Recommended Posts

I remember reading back that Paul said he never signs in anonymously yet as this guest posted, he started this topic and yet it was started by Paul. So he comes on here as guest to incite people and then tries to justify it as "Paul". Good luck Charlie Brown or whoever you say you are today.

When I saw Paul's obviously accidental "Guest" post, I wondered how long it would take for someone to try to spin it as some kind of deliberate deception. But then I thought, no, surely no one would stoop that low. Tell me LL, how's the view from way down there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul

These are all the same things I heard when the story broke.

As long as my tax dollars are funding education in Kearny, I’m going to do all I can to insist that students get a proper education. That means that teachers shouldn’t be telling kids that the Flintstones is history.

I’m very sorry, JesusLives, but it is ignorant. The earth is not 6,000 years old, dinosaurs and humans did not live at the same time and evolution is a fact as well as a theory. Each of those statements is a part of the approved curriculum in the state of New Jersey. They are part of the curriculum because they are scientific facts. To undermine them is ignorant and wrong, and we should not be putting up with it. You don’t have to stop believing in Jesus. Most Christians believe in Jesus and also accept the fact that the earth is billions of years old, evolution did happen and dinosaurs died out long before humans appeared. I’m not the one creating the conflict. You are. If you insist on denying science, I’m going to oppose you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Lincoln Logger
These are all the same things I heard when the story broke.

As long as my tax dollars are funding education in Kearny, I’m going to do all I can to insist that students get a proper education. That means that teachers shouldn’t be telling kids that the Flintstones is history.

I’m very sorry, JesusLives, but it is ignorant. The earth is not 6,000 years old, dinosaurs and humans did not live at the same time and evolution is a fact as well as a theory. Each of those statements is a part of the approved curriculum in the state of New Jersey. They are part of the curriculum because they are scientific facts. To undermine them is ignorant and wrong, and we should not be putting up with it. You don’t have to stop believing in Jesus. Most Christians believe in Jesus and also accept the fact that the earth is billions of years old, evolution did happen and dinosaurs died out long before humans appeared. I’m not the one creating the conflict. You are. If you insist on denying science, I’m going to oppose you.

Education comes in all forms and to deny that makes you the ignorant one. Science is evolving every day. The facts that existed as scientific proof 200 years ago do not necessarily apply today. Most probably the facts that occur two hundred years from now will disprove the facts of today. What it does not disprove is your hatred toward this teacher. That is most obvious. In some respect if showing the Flintstones can prove a point to young people that dinosaurs existed and how they lived, then it can be used as a teaching tool. Speaking of tools, you should leave what you don’t know alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Education comes in all forms and to deny that makes you the ignorant one. Science is evolving every day. The facts that existed as scientific proof 200 years ago do not necessarily apply today. Most probably the facts that occur two hundred years from now will disprove the facts of today. What it does not disprove is your hatred toward this teacher. That is most obvious. In some respect if showing the Flintstones can prove a point to young people that dinosaurs existed and how they lived, then it can be used as a teaching tool. Speaking of tools, you should leave what you don’t know alone.

:huh::o:lol:

:lol:

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Education comes in all forms and to deny that makes you the ignorant one. Science is evolving every day. The facts that existed as scientific proof 200 years ago do not necessarily apply today. Most probably the facts that occur two hundred years from now will disprove the facts of today. What it does not disprove is your hatred toward this teacher. That is most obvious. In some respect if showing the Flintstones can prove a point to young people that dinosaurs existed and how they lived, then it can be used as a teaching tool. Speaking of tools, you should leave what you don’t know alone.

Education does come in many forms, but there is a difference between medicine and voodoo. You would have us ignore that difference.

By your logic, we should tell kids that pregnancies have nothing to do with sex, they just happen because people have dirty thoughts. After all, not everyone who has sex gets pregnant. Maybe science will figure that out 200 years from now.

Maybe we should tell them that cigarettes don’t cause cancer. Goodness knows, the tobacco companies tried.

We should tell them that they don’t need an education because all that information is going to be worthless 200 years from now anyway. Believe what you want. Knowledge doesn’t matter.

Let’s get rid of all those dumb theories about evolution, and while we’re at it, let’s toss out all the medical treatments that exist because researchers applied evolutionary theory.

In fact, let’s just close the schools. We might as well if what you’re saying was true.

To deny that the earth is billions of years old, you have to deny

--- the entire science of material dating (which works for everything else)

--- everything we know about the universe from calculations based on the speed of light

--- all the geological patterns and configurations

And you want to base your beliefs on a collection of writings from men who lived before men even knew what science is; a collection of writings that has been discredited and disproved time and time again. Yet no matter how many times science uncovers another obvious scientific untruth in scripture, you don’t learn anything. You still think that you can understand the material universe by reading the writings of primitive men who were trying to explain things they didn’t understand. That is truly ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Education comes in all forms and to deny that makes you the ignorant one. Science is evolving every day. The facts that existed as scientific proof 200 years ago do not necessarily apply today. Most probably the facts that occur two hundred years from now will disprove the facts of today. What it does not disprove is your hatred toward this teacher. That is most obvious. In some respect if showing the Flintstones can prove a point to young people that dinosaurs existed and how they lived, then it can be used as a teaching tool. Speaking of tools, you should leave what you don’t know alone.

Just because science evolves doesn't mean that you should present the Flintstones as a teaching tool for science. A statement like that just shows how ignorant you are.

In addition, you don't understand the relationship between facts and scientific theories. "The facts that existed as scientific proof 200 years ago" still apply today. They will always apply because they are facts. What has changed is that we now have more facts, and those new facts have allowed us to refine our old theories and develop new ones. You should take your own advice and leave what you don't know alone, because you obviously don't know anything about science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
In some respect if showing the Flintstones can prove a point to young people that dinosaurs existed and how they lived, then it can be used as a teaching tool.

ROFLMAO!

Hey, great idea, moron! Let's hire Fred Flintstone to teach Paszkiewicz's "history" class. They couldn't do any worse. Maybe Barney Rubble would agree to be the principal.

Meanwhile, let's teach sex ed with Beavis and Butthead cartoons. We could have Scooby-Doo come in and say "Ruh-Ro!" every time they do something stupid.

We could show them Superman cartoons in phys ed so they'll think they can fly.

How about Yosemite Sam and Daffy Duck for values training.

Seriously, you want to use a cartoon to teach science. Yeah, who needs those dumb old books and those boring old experiments anyway. Things always work out OK in the cartoons. Can't figure out mitosis, no big deal, just watch Huckleberry Hound for a few hours and everything will be fine.

One thing is for sure. There's no shortage of stupid in Kearny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Education comes in all forms and to deny that makes you the ignorant one. Science is evolving every day. The facts that existed as scientific proof 200 years ago do not necessarily apply today. Most probably the facts that occur two hundred years from now will disprove the facts of today. What it does not disprove is your hatred toward this teacher. That is most obvious. In some respect if showing the Flintstones can prove a point to young people that dinosaurs existed and how they lived, then it can be used as a teaching tool. Speaking of tools, you should leave what you don’t know alone.

LL’s comments about the Flintstones require no further comment. I’m going to make a boring point about science and education. If you want to take the time to read it, that’s great. If you don’t – well, that illustrates the problem. That’s not a criticism. I’m just recognizing that thinking a problem through takes time and effort.

LL, if you value education and science, it can’t work as you suggest. Every theory is always subject to challenge, but not on the basis of whim or guesswork. Knowledge needs room to grow, but it also requires stability. Young earth creationism isn’t a scientific theory; it’s just wishful thinking that is contrary to all the data.

There is no reasonable doubt that the earth is billions of years old. Scientists do not disagree about this. This point is controversial only among people who do not understand science. Unfortunately, that represents a large segment of our population.

You don’t seem to understand the practical reality of telling kids, effectively, that they may believe whatever they like. The United States is falling behind other countries in science and mathematics. All the data suggest that this is due in part to our relative disdain for science whenever some group thinks science conflicts with religion.

If the American people do not understand the fundamental principles of science, then we cannot expect our children to value science, or understand it. And if they don’t understand it, they are not likely to pursue it as a career or support it, which is exactly what we see happening in the United States over the past several decades. It has become a threat to our economic future and our long-term national security.

In order for a discipline to motivate people, they must be able to see how it relates to their lives. When you make an argument like the one you just made, suggesting that even the most thoroughly proven scientific theory can safely be disregarded, you sever the connection between science and life. That is very destructive to our country’s well-being and our long-term future.

To give an example, Isaac Newton’s theories of gravity and physics made the industrial revolution possible. Yet approximately a century ago, Einstein proved that they were fundamentally flawed. Scientific theories do change in science, but if the world had not accepted Newton’s theories as true, the industrial revolution could not have taken place. They are still good approximations of the truth, which is why they are still used for most applications.

As a contemporary example, consider the state of scientific knowledge about the age of the universe, as explained by scientists at NASA:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

If you read this carefully, you will see that there are uncertainties about the precise age of the universe. The dispute is about how many billions of years old it is. There is no suggestion that it is only thousands of years old. Equally important, scientists are approaching the unresolved questions via the scientific method. The strategy is to continue studying, collecting data and refining the theories, so that as time passes science ever more closely approximates the truth. Lincoln Logger, you are using no such strategy: you merely say that science has been wrong before and will be wrong again, so it’s OK to believe as you please. That is not a responsible position. It is a certain recipe for ignorance: and not only ignorance of facts but also ignorance about the methods of gaining knowledge. It’s not just about what we know; it’s also about how we come to know things. Science has a proven track record of advancement. LL, your approach denies that any real advances are possible: in practical terms, we know that is not true.

As long as science advances knowledge and theology does not, it is science that the community must take as true. Science won't be right every time, but the historical record shows that it comes closer to the truth than theology; and that it is the field that moves us forward, not theology.

This explanation demands a little reading and a little thinking. We all have a choice to make: do we want to know or are we satisfied with ignorance. If you’re satisfied with ignorance, then you can do nothing and ignorance is what you will have. If you prefer knowledge, you’re going to have to work at it.

If people are to advance scientifically and technologically, they must operate from our best science. If we did things your way, the educational system would be unstable. We wouldn’t be able to use it to maximum effect. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening. We cannot continue to do things this way if we hope to remain the greatest and most advanced country on earth, and if we want our children to have well-rounded educations. That is why this matters to me. Feel free to disagree with me on the merits, but falsely ascribing motives that I don't have is unethical and un-Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
A phony argument. There are no "advances" to be made in theology. Theology is what it is. On the other hand, while evolution is an indisputable fact, there's no evidence that evolution is not part of God's plan, just as there is no evidence that evolution is part of God's plan. Christians believe God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, atheists insist all life can be traced to a coming-together of amino acids in some kind of soup.

Unless science can establish, prove or duplicate a spontaneous generation of life, atheists have nothing but their own misguided prejudices.

Absolutely right! And I notice Paul hasn't tried to refute your post. Paul's favorite strategy in putting christians down is to suggest that christians don't believe or understand evolution, which is nonsense. Evolution is a proven fact, there's no denying evolution has been going on as long as life has existed on earth. Where christians part company from the atheists is, as you say, we believe evolution is part of God's plan (intelligent design).

And, as you say, while there is no evidence of God's hand in this, there is also no evidence that life began on it's own in a pool of soupy chemicals.

Paul will continue to say there's been no advances in theology (whatever that means), as if theology can be studied in a test tube or on a microscopic slide. And as you also said, that's a phony argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Absolutely right! And I notice Paul hasn't tried to refute your post. Paul's favorite strategy in putting christians down is to suggest that christians don't believe or understand evolution, which is nonsense. Evolution is a proven fact, there's no denying evolution has been going on as long as life has existed on earth. Where christians part company from the atheists is, as you say, we believe evolution is part of God's plan (intelligent design).

And, as you say, while there is no evidence of God's hand in this, there is also no evidence that life began on it's own in a pool of soupy chemicals.

Paul will continue to say there's been no advances in theology (whatever that means), as if theology can be studied in a test tube or on a microscopic slide. And as you also said, that's a phony argument.

The reason I didn't "refute" the post is that it has nothing to do with my point. You guys keep insisting that I'm here to bash theism. You are incorrect. Theism, and Christianity in particular, are not necessarily at odds with the teaching of evolution. For example, Ken Miller of Brown University, who presented a lecture at KHS, is both an evolutionary biologist and a practicing Catholic. You guys are the ones who keep insisting on the conflict.

I opened this topic in response to the Alpha and Omega club's planned trip to the so-called creation museum. That museum presents young earth creationism, which explicitly denies evolution. The denial of evolution is an ignorant position, as you acknowledge when you write that "there's no denying evolution. . ." You're right, and I agree with you. So why do you insist on fighting with me? The phony argument is the argument that I'm trying to bash Christianity. It's just not true.

To your other point, "there have been no advances in theology" means that the study of God (which is what theology is) isn't going to improve the human condition. Never has and never will. Science will, and has. If you care about making the world a better place, this is not a phony argument, but a very important observation. The advances will come through science, just as they always have.

I raise the point only because young earth creationism sets religion against science. If I was having this discussion with Ken Miller, I would still disagree with him on some points, but there would be fewer disagreements and they would be milder. He is not a young earth creationist. I certainly wouldn't call him ignorant. I'm calling Paszkiewicz's position ignorant because it is.

Criticize my ideas. But don't distort them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

QUOTE (2smart4u @ May 12 2009, 07:59 AM)

A phony argument. There are no "advances" to be made in theology. Theology is what it is. On the other hand, while evolution is an indisputable fact, there's no evidence that evolution is not part of God's plan, just as there is no evidence that evolution is part of God's plan. Christians believe God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, atheists insist all life can be traced to a coming-together of amino acids in some kind of soup.

Unless science can establish, prove or duplicate a spontaneous generation of life, atheists have nothing but their own misguided prejudices.

Absolutely right! And I notice Paul hasn't tried to refute your post. Paul's favorite strategy in putting christians down is to suggest that christians don't believe or understand evolution, which is nonsense. Evolution is a proven fact, there's no denying evolution has been going on as long as life has existed on earth. Where christians part company from the atheists is, as you say, we believe evolution is part of God's plan (intelligent design).

And, as you say, while there is no evidence of God's hand in this, there is also no evidence that life began on it's own in a pool of soupy chemicals.

Paul will continue to say there's been no advances in theology (whatever that means), as if theology can be studied in a test tube or on a microscopic slide. And as you also said, that's a phony argument.

Can’t you read? Paul already addressed your point in post 1, where he wrote “I do not believe that young-earth creationism represents the views of the majority of Kearny’s Christians.”; and again in post 2, where he wrote “a Christian club is appropriate, but if it seeks to promote young-earth creationism, it crosses the line” and again in post 5, where he wrote “Christianity is about so many things, including many wonderful things” and again in post 7, where he wrote “I am not criticizing the belief that there is a god who created the universe, the world, etc. . . . My criticism is of young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and that evolution never happened.” Paul not only addressed your point, he made your point, four times before you even raised it. And yet you still insist on arguing with him. He agrees with you! He told you that four times!

Your disagreement is with Mr. Paszkiewicz, who insists that God and evolution cannot go together. Go argue with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Lincoln Logger
Education does come in many forms, but there is a difference between medicine and voodoo. You would have us ignore that difference.

By your logic, we should tell kids that pregnancies have nothing to do with sex, they just happen because people have dirty thoughts. After all, not everyone who has sex gets pregnant. Maybe science will figure that out 200 years from now.

Maybe we should tell them that cigarettes don’t cause cancer. Goodness knows, the tobacco companies tried.

We should tell them that they don’t need an education because all that information is going to be worthless 200 years from now anyway. Believe what you want. Knowledge doesn’t matter.

Let’s get rid of all those dumb theories about evolution, and while we’re at it, let’s toss out all the medical treatments that exist because researchers applied evolutionary theory.

In fact, let’s just close the schools. We might as well if what you’re saying was true.

To deny that the earth is billions of years old, you have to deny

--- the entire science of material dating (which works for everything else)

--- everything we know about the universe from calculations based on the speed of light

--- all the geological patterns and configurations

And you want to base your beliefs on a collection of writings from men who lived before men even knew what science is; a collection of writings that has been discredited and disproved time and time again. Yet no matter how many times science uncovers another obvious scientific untruth in scripture, you don’t learn anything. You still think that you can understand the material universe by reading the writings of primitive men who were trying to explain things they didn’t understand. That is truly ignorant.

You know Paul; sometimes you really do show your ignorance. My point is that you can learn from anything, even arrogant posts by hostile writers. Your comparison to religion being voodoo is priceless. As you know exactly what everyone is going to say here before they say it, it will be no surprise to you that what I am saying is that the writings of the time(in many cases and in whatever language they knew at that time) were how we today know of the happenings of the period. Unless you would want to go back to all those books burning days. Then we would have no evidence and just make it up based upon today’s carbon dating with you so called science. It is a wonderful isolated world you live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
You know Paul; sometimes you really do show your ignorance. My point is that you can learn from anything, even arrogant posts by hostile writers. Your comparison to religion being voodoo is priceless. As you know exactly what everyone is going to say here before they say it, it will be no surprise to you that what I am saying is that the writings of the time(in many cases and in whatever language they knew at that time) were how we today know of the happenings of the period. Unless you would want to go back to all those books burning days. Then we would have no evidence and just make it up based upon today’s carbon dating with you so called science. It is a wonderful isolated world you live in.

It's not Paul's post. Regarding yours, I have no idea what you're talking about. Ancient writings are what they are. That doesn't mean that misinformation should be equated with information. If you're trying to make another point, I don't understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest *Autonomous*
You know Paul; sometimes you really do show your ignorance. My point is that you can learn from anything, even arrogant posts by hostile writers. Your comparison to religion being voodoo is priceless. As you know exactly what everyone is going to say here before they say it, it will be no surprise to you that what I am saying is that the writings of the time(in many cases and in whatever language they knew at that time) were how we today know of the happenings of the period. Unless you would want to go back to all those books burning days. Then we would have no evidence and just make it up based upon today’s carbon dating with you so called science. It is a wonderful isolated world you live in.

He didn't compare religion to voodoo, he compared creationism (esp. YEC) to voodoo. It is an apt comparison. The most brilliant Christian thinker of all (Saint Augustine) accepted that Genesis was allegorical. Why can't you?

Your theory is wrong. Scientific facts don't change, the interpretation of them does. For instance-Principles of Geology by Charles Lyell was the first major scientific work to really deal with uniformitarianism and provide evidence for an ancient earth. It is nearly 200 now. The fact is, creationists cannot provide a single shred of evidence that their hypothesis is sound. In the movie Expelled they are reduced to making the exact same arguments as the 9/11 'truthers,' UFOlogists, and believers in Bigfoot.

We wouldn't care if you simply wanted to believe that God set up and controlled the process. That is a philosophical point, not a scientific one. Unfortunately, that isn't what creationism is about. You insist that evolution requires divine intervention. That is a positive statement and needs to be proven-which time after time after time after time the creationists have utterly failed to do.

btw-the vast majority of book burnings the last few centuries have been religious in nature. You might not want to bring that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest *Autonomous*

Crap-forgot to post this:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/ful...s.2009.471.html

Keep in mind that it only takes seven nucleotides to make a self-replicator, so this is incredibly exciting news. We now have proven that self replicators can occur. Now we only have one step to show how to get from there to RNA and we've proven creationism's only remaining argument untrue. One step!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Crap-forgot to post this:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/ful...s.2009.471.html

Keep in mind that it only takes seven nucleotides to make a self-replicator, so this is incredibly exciting news. We now have proven that self replicators can occur. Now we only have one step to show how to get from there to RNA and we've proven creationism's only remaining argument untrue. One step!

It's already been debunked. "suggests" , "we don't know", "the flaw is in the logic" ....... You're going to have to do better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JonesisBACK

Neither perspective can be proven. How is one more ignorant than the other? How is a Science club any different that a Christian club? You are an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest *Autonomous*
It's already been debunked. "suggests" , "we don't know", "the flaw is in the logic" ....... You're going to have to do better than that.

You REALLY need to read that article again. Taking ten words out of context does not prove your point. There is already talk of a Nobel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest *Autonomous*
Neither perspective can be proven. How is one more ignorant than the other? How is a Science club any different that a Christian club? You are an idiot.

You are making an argument against a statement no one here has made. No one is talking about science vs. religion. We are talking about evolution vs. creationism. As I said before-the greatest Christian thinker of all time was fine with Genesis as an allegory. Perhaps bolding will help-you don't have to be a creationist to be a Christian. So you've come into this thread and boldly denounced a position that no one has taken yet I'm an idiot? I think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest *Autonomous*
It's already been debunked. "suggests" , "we don't know", "the flaw is in the logic" ....... You're going to have to do better than that.

By the way-I looked it up and every word you quoted refers to the theoretical next step which I already stated as theoretical. You really need to learn about the Uncertainty Principle. Certainty has no place in science-only in unthinking faith.

I suppose you have a bit of evidence for your view? Anything at all? There are two hypotheses here-mine has evidence for it but not yet a complete chain. Yours has nothing whatsoever. When I was a child the state of Arkansas had a famous court case about the teaching of YEC. Your side has had to back off of that because the evidence is too overwhelmingly against a young earth. As evidence mounts, the 'necessary' role of divine intervention has become smaller and smaller. Give it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Neither perspective can be proven. How is one more ignorant than the other? How is a Science club any different that a Christian club? You are an idiot.

You don't know what you're talking about. Plenty of things in science are proven, including evolution. If science didn't prove anything, we wouldn't be using a computer network to have this discussion. By contrast, very little or nothing in Christian theology is proven.

To answer your question, a science club explores science. If it's any good, students learn from it. A Christian club explores Christianity. If it's any good, the students bond with each other and learn more about their belief system. They may even do community service. If it's bad, it divides the community and promotes ignorance.

In the case of Paszkiewicz's Alpha and Omega club, the kids are talking about nonsense. They have reduced Christianity to narrow-minded beliefs that are anti-scientific. It does not sound like a welcoming place for most Christians to be.

This particular brand of Christianity claims there are absolute truths; and yet here you are saying that there is no truth, it's all just perspective. According to you, religion is absolute truth but science is just a matter of perspective. Talk about a ridiculous, self-serving contradiction!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
It's already been debunked. "suggests" , "we don't know", "the flaw is in the logic" ....... You're going to have to do better than that.

You don't know what you're talking about either. This is what science does every day, year after year, century after century. As a result we have technologies and medical treatments we never had before, and thousands of new discoveries are being made every year.

Obviously you do not understand that this is how science works. Someone thinks he sees a pattern. Then he explores it. He collects data. For quite some time, the data will seem to "suggest" a theory. Eventually, when scientists have enough data, they have a solid theory.

Science is a little like waiting for your presents at Christmas. If you're not patient, you don't get any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest *Autonomous*
You don't know what you're talking about either. This is what science does every day, year after year, century after century. As a result we have technologies and medical treatments we never had before, and thousands of new discoveries are being made every year.

Obviously you do not understand that this is how science works. Someone thinks he sees a pattern. Then he explores it. He collects data. For quite some time, the data will seem to "suggest" a theory. Eventually, when scientists have enough data, they have a solid theory.

Science is a little like waiting for your presents at Christmas. If you're not patient, you don't get any.

What is sad about 2dim's point is that this story is more than that. It isn't a theory-they actually created the nucleotides in the lab. It cannot be debunked-it is proven. Unless you can show that they flat-out made the whole thing up then there is very little to debunk. The only uncertainty is if this was the first step in the formation of life. That will always be there-even if we someday create life in the lab we won't know for sure if the path we took was the same that led to life on earth. There could be multiple pathways for all we know. We weren't there.

The primary argument of creationists is a straw man fallacy. They love to throw out the enormous odds of the simplest possible lifeform spontaneously forming. Unfortunately for them, no actual scientist says this. Science has theorized a series of gradual steps-if they can get to a self-replicator (RNA being the most likely) they can get to life because evolution is a simple mathematical equation that works for many complex systems that aren't technically alive-such as viruses (swine flu anyone?). About the only thing we don't know is how it started, and this is a gigantic step towards that goal. I'd lay odds that this experiment easily wins the Nobel-after all, the mere hypothesis of the 'RNA World' won one, and this goes pretty far towards proving it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...