Saturday, June 16, 2007

Replacing mainstream science with what????

Should I continue to deal with the comments of the women known as "Honey" here at this blog? She continuous to argue against the conclusions of mainstream science, but what does she put in its place? We find another comment of hers at The Origin of Life. I respond to her here.

All the scientific evidence we can gather on the matter demonstrates that life does not occur spontaneously.

As I explained to her before (here) her hero, Louis Pasteur, and others have demonstrated that life does not occur spontaneously under the known present conditions. But we notice that she conveniently ignores that detail. Nowhere has science ever tested, or been able to test, the concept of life evolving from primitive chemicals on the early earth over millions of years. As I have explained to her before, such a test would be impossible, for it would require millions of years--and we don't have time to wait that long--and it would require exact knowledge of conditions of early life.

So exactly which experiment is "Honey" referring to that, after millions of years of conditions in the reducing atmosphere similiar to conditions on the early earth, life was found not to occur? Would she please explain to me when and where that experiment occurred? What's that you say? Ah, such an experiment was never done, for it would require millions of years! Aha! The experiment was never done! Now if the experiment was never done, how can she possibly infer that experiments say the original emergence of life by this process was impossible? Don't we need to do the experiment at least once before we make the claim that experiments verify our conclusion?

As I explained to her before (and she ignores) her hero, Pasteur, said, "I looked for spontaneous generation without finding it, but I do not believe it to be impossible." Pasteur knew that his not finding the spontaneous emergence of microbes under the conditions he tested in no way proved it to be impossible in all conditions. And Pasteur was not even attempting to test the conditions of early earth. That was not his purpose. He had other concerns in mind, that is, how to form and control the microbes that cause fermentation, thus enhancing the production of beer. And yet somehow, Honey chooses to extrapolate from the fact that Pasteur could not find the spontaneous emerging of life under the conditions he was testing to the false conclusion that life could not occur spontaneously under any possible condition.Is such an extrapolation justified?

And what a coincidence...the Bible says that GOD gave life to everything.

The question before us is not whether God was involved in the process--a question I do not normally address--but what that process was. Science is very clear on the process that formed modern life. After the first microbes appeared, these microbes evolved into the range of creatures we see today. There is overwhelming evidence for that.

Now if "Honey" can agree with me that evolution is the process by which modern species arose, we could move on to discuss whether God was behind it all. But if she denies evolution, then she finds herself in opposition to a vast amount of solid science. And if she denies evolution, what does she put in its place?

The Biblical evidence is that God created the first of, and that reproduction followed after it's kind.

And the scientific evidence is that "kinds" have been varying with time. For instance, there is a well established series of horse fossils that shows that modern horses and zebras evolved from a small fox-sized creature. Does Honey deny this? Okay, then exactly how did the first Zebra come into existance? If Honey knows better than mainstream science, would she please present us with an alternative? How exactly did the first Zebra come into existence?

"Special creation"? "Out of nothing"? I didn't use these phrases at all, and I make no such claim.

Ah, so now we run into the traditional denial and obfuscation. "Special creation" is the term used for the belief that God specifically made each "kind" distinct, without using the process of evolution. But Honey doesn't like the term "special creation"? Fine, she may use whatever term she wants. But what term does she use? If she is going to deny evolution, doesn't she need to present us with an alternative? How exactly did the first zebra come into existence, if not by evolution, and not by "special creation"?

Honey is replacing mainstream science with what?

God created man out of the dust of the Earth, and the Breath of God, so there is every reason to believe the other forms of life were created in similar manner.

Mainstream science teaches that out of the elements of the earth and the atmosphere, over time, life emerged. The question is not whether life originated from the existing elements--on which we both seem to agree--but how this happened.

How did the first zebra come into existence? I await anxiously to hear Honey's answer.


LorMar said...

"Mainstream science teaches that out of the dust of the ground and the atmosphere, over time, life emerged."

Is this something that is really taught by mainstream science (life beginning out of the dust of the ground) or were you being facetious?

Merle said...

Okay, "dust of the ground" isn't the most accurate way of stating that. I changed the phrasing to "elements of the earth.

LorMar said...

I understood the semantic issue. I was just surprised that mainstream science taught this concept since it doesn't sound that much different from the account in Genesis (man being formed out of the dust).