Dugg down as wrong topic. Please keep you dorky little flame war bait out of science, as those of us that check science actually are interested in science articles.
Sorry, but gravity does not keep an electron in an "orbit". In fact, electrons are not in orbits at all. Just so you know, it's the charges that keep them together (the gravitational pull of the subatomic particles would not be enough to keep them together. Everything else you said was fine :)
TrevorBradley Last time I checked that same outside source of energy to start life from nothing is also feeding the pieces of broken coffee cups. I am not even asking for the planet to form a self-replicating coffee cup. Just one normal coffee cup from broken coffee cup pieces. As soon as one forms without the aid of a person making it happen then I am willing to say it is fully possible for life to start from nothing without needing some form of guidance.
@imperium2000 "I'm sorry I thought any theory made using the Scientific Method is still a valid theory.My 'Hypothesis of Guided evolution' so far has not been disproven.Therefor my now 'theory of Guided evolution' still stands as a theory.A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it."You've got things completely backwards. Your statement is a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is an accepted collection of laws, hypothesis that explains phenomena. Your hypothesis has not evidence to back it up. This makes the probability of it being right extremely low. You can never disprove anything in science but it doesn't make your hypothesis valid or even probable."I am willing to say it is likely it will never be a scientific Law. But unlike many people I have seen in this thread I am willing to say the Other theories to answer 'how did life start?' are Theories too."You are misusing scientific law. A scientific law explains one phenomena. Evolution is too complex to ever be a law. The beginning of life is still in the hypothesis stage. There are several beginning of life scenarios ranging from abiogenesis to panspermia."But thank you for telling me what can and can not be science.Feel free to share the new more sarcastic Scientific Method your using with me."Since you have no idea about the scientific method, your entire statement is irrelevant. The method is a tool that used to build models about how the universe works. It is done by testing hypothesis to help build these models. You don't make things up like how you are asserting. I can claim that Zeus guided evolution and it has as much evidence to support this claim as your so called 'theory of Guided evolution'. Try again. A lot of people would say a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones.Science is trying to transform raw inert matter into life under laboratory conditions. With years of study some say with guidance under controlled conditions they might be close to making RNA enzymes that carry out all the steps needed for protein synthesis. Based on that evidence I would say that even the guided formation of life is a hard Nut to crack. Then I would go on say the idea of guided evolution has the merit needed to be a theory.
"For creationists, what truly matters is the authority behind a statement--if they can find someone who they hold in high regard to support their beliefs, then their beliefs are true, end of story. And if someone changes their beliefs, it only weakens them as an authority, and thus weakens their ability to be a truth-giver."Are you seperating creationists from the religious then? Because look at how many times religious leaders like the Pope or the Mormon president for example will change their church "doctrine" to suit the times.And look at how "rational" people parade out "authorities" and "experts" and people believe them because they are the "expert" in the field. But have those rational people gone out and done the experiments and gathered the imperical evidence for themselves? No, they just believe the expert.Every human being is more alike than they want to acknowledge.
@kongdong"I understand that this is satire and I'm not sure how it is in Kansas but it's kind of annoying seeing all these stories bashing Christian Science"Christian Science? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Or maybe you mean "trying to create (pun intended) evidence to fit our creationist agenda"?
I suppose, and I am not Christian so I can't say I have any particularly strong say in this, that the Bible is not just a history book. It is perhaps a book of moral guidance, which establishes context and connection by means of parables and story-telling. Giving such guidance through stories that establish a history, fictional or not, is not necessarily a bad thing. It's just when people start taking those stories as documented fact that it all gets ugly.Eh, thought of the moment.
error601May 26, 2007
Dugg down as wrong topic. Please keep you dorky little flame war bait out of science, as those of us that check science actually are interested in science articles.
jclinMay 26, 2007
Sorry, but gravity does not keep an electron in an "orbit". In fact, electrons are not in orbits at all. Just so you know, it's the charges that keep them together (the gravitational pull of the subatomic particles would not be enough to keep them together. Everything else you said was fine :)
gothvanhelsingMay 27, 2007
TrevorBradley Last time I checked that same outside source of energy to start life from nothing is also feeding the pieces of broken coffee cups. I am not even asking for the planet to form a self-replicating coffee cup. Just one normal coffee cup from broken coffee cup pieces. As soon as one forms without the aid of a person making it happen then I am willing to say it is fully possible for life to start from nothing without needing some form of guidance.
gothvanhelsingMay 27, 2007
@imperium2000 "I'm sorry I thought any theory made using the Scientific Method is still a valid theory.My 'Hypothesis of Guided evolution' so far has not been disproven.Therefor my now 'theory of Guided evolution' still stands as a theory.A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it."You've got things completely backwards. Your statement is a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is an accepted collection of laws, hypothesis that explains phenomena. Your hypothesis has not evidence to back it up. This makes the probability of it being right extremely low. You can never disprove anything in science but it doesn't make your hypothesis valid or even probable."I am willing to say it is likely it will never be a scientific Law. But unlike many people I have seen in this thread I am willing to say the Other theories to answer 'how did life start?' are Theories too."You are misusing scientific law. A scientific law explains one phenomena. Evolution is too complex to ever be a law. The beginning of life is still in the hypothesis stage. There are several beginning of life scenarios ranging from abiogenesis to panspermia."But thank you for telling me what can and can not be science.Feel free to share the new more sarcastic Scientific Method your using with me."Since you have no idea about the scientific method, your entire statement is irrelevant. The method is a tool that used to build models about how the universe works. It is done by testing hypothesis to help build these models. You don't make things up like how you are asserting. I can claim that Zeus guided evolution and it has as much evidence to support this claim as your so called 'theory of Guided evolution'. Try again. A lot of people would say a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones.Science is trying to transform raw inert matter into life under laboratory conditions. With years of study some say with guidance under controlled conditions they might be close to making RNA enzymes that carry out all the steps needed for protein synthesis. Based on that evidence I would say that even the guided formation of life is a hard Nut to crack. Then I would go on say the idea of guided evolution has the merit needed to be a theory.
thefaithfulMay 29, 2007
"For creationists, what truly matters is the authority behind a statement--if they can find someone who they hold in high regard to support their beliefs, then their beliefs are true, end of story. And if someone changes their beliefs, it only weakens them as an authority, and thus weakens their ability to be a truth-giver."Are you seperating creationists from the religious then? Because look at how many times religious leaders like the Pope or the Mormon president for example will change their church "doctrine" to suit the times.And look at how "rational" people parade out "authorities" and "experts" and people believe them because they are the "expert" in the field. But have those rational people gone out and done the experiments and gathered the imperical evidence for themselves? No, they just believe the expert.Every human being is more alike than they want to acknowledge.
init100May 29, 2007
@kongdong"I understand that this is satire and I'm not sure how it is in Kansas but it's kind of annoying seeing all these stories bashing Christian Science"Christian Science? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Or maybe you mean "trying to create (pun intended) evidence to fit our creationist agenda"?
shadow9939Jul 6, 2007
Nonsense! That's the beauty of ridicule. It's the accessory for every occasion. Just ask the creationists and they will tell you that.
ozydingoJan 2, 2008
I suppose, and I am not Christian so I can't say I have any particularly strong say in this, that the Bible is not just a history book. It is perhaps a book of moral guidance, which establishes context and connection by means of parables and story-telling. Giving such guidance through stories that establish a history, fictional or not, is not necessarily a bad thing. It's just when people start taking those stories as documented fact that it all gets ugly.Eh, thought of the moment.
emeksvFeb 16, 2008
Or H. G. Wells, possibly :)