>>Bertvan
>> I question anyone's right to declare abiogenesis a
>>>fact until it has been demonstrated.
>
>Susan:
>>I thought asserting things as facts without evidence was your God- (or
>>whoever) given right! Everybody has to have hard evidence for their beliefs
>>but Bertvan. Nice work if you can get it!
>
>Bertvan:
>Hi Susan, Any "evidence" you cite is not yours. You are merely repeating
>someone else's "evidence". (Hopefully you completely understand it.)
Reading someone else's evidence called "education." One of the advantages
of living in a society is that you don't have to re-invent your own wheels.
I understand quite a bit of it, but don't have enough education to
understand it all. Of course you have to believe that the entire world
isn't lying to you, that when many different people make the same
observations and report them they are not crazy or lying. But that's life.
You have to sift through what is out there and try to find what is real and
what is not. Science does that too except it is trying to read the book of
nature.
There is a great deal of work being done on abiogenesis these days. It's
quite interesting. Thermal vents are looking more promising all the time.
They havn't stumbled across any miracles yet.
>There
>are plenty of scientists skeptical that life arose accidentally from inert
>chemicals. You can read their "evidence" if you wish. If you aren't
>convinced, I have no desire to persuade you otherwise.
we know all about your desires. We here about them constantly. Your bald
wish to merely state your views free of any wish to persuade is of no
interest or concern to me. I'm here to persuade and don't see anything
wrong with it. There are *not* "many" scientists skeptical of abiogenesis.
There are very few and nearly all are some sort of conservative Christian.
>Susan:
>>I thought you had read Hoyle and very much admired him. That aliens did it
>>is his favorite explanation for life on earth. (Of course, he also believes
>>that insects are more intelligent than we are and just keeping it a secret
>>from us dumb humans.)
>
>Bertvan:
>I've read quite a lot by Hoyle. If he really says that, I respectfully
>disagree.
I can't imagine that you have read a lot of Hoyle and not run across his
"aliens did it" theory. And what's wrong with aliens doing it? Stephen
thinks God did it, but he's in this debate because of his Christianity. You
keep repeating over and over that you don't really care who did it. So
what's wrong with aliens? (Unless you are referring to the insect thing.
Well duh! who in their right mind would agree with that?)
>Susan
>>McCarthyism is a government persecution thing. Johnson, Dembsky, et al. are
>>pushing the ID agenda because they are evangelical Christians. They make no
>>secret about it. Acknowledging the obvious is not persecution.
>
>Bertvan:
>McCarthyism was probably a poor choice of words. If some people advocating
>ID were Buddhists that would not make us all Buddhists. If some of them are
>musicians, others of us are tone deaf. ID is a concept. Many ID advocates
>are Christian. Those of us who are agnostic, and also believe life is the
>result of a rational design rather than random processes, are grateful to
>them for their efforts to bring the concept to the attention of the public.
>(It's pretty obvious biologists don't want it brought to their attention.)
biologists have had it shoved in their faces for 200 years. They are pretty
sick of it by now.
>Susan:
>>there are many more agnostics than atheists. Most people prefer to say "I
>>don't know" than go out on a limb and say "I know there is no such thing as
>>the supernatural."
>
>Bertvan,
>I'm a little confused here. I thought it was the Darwinists (or whatever you
>call yourselves) who state "I know there is no such thing as the
>supernatural." You also "know" life arose accidentally from inert chemicals,
>don't you?
"evolutionist" is fine. Evolutionary biology cannot detect the
supernatural. Therefore it has nothing much to say on the subject except
"get your religious beliefs out of my face." Life did not arise
"accidentally" from inert chemicals. Physics is not accidental which is why
people refer to "laws" of physics. If the conditions are right, life is
inevitable. Why not? Randomness terrifies you. Physics should comfort you.
>>Susan
>>To be an ID adherent you have to believe--with no
>>verification--that some supernatural agency exists which is powerful enough
>>to interfere with the reproduction of every genome for the last 3.5 billion
>>years.
>
>Bertvan:
>Really? I haven't heard any ID supporter suggest that, but maybe you've read
>more of them than I have.
I've seen that suggested here on this list many times. It is implicit in ID
theory. If God--er, excuse me, "the intelligent agency"--did it, then
he/she/it has been doing it all along. Life has been on this planet for 3.5
billion years. Therefore that's how long he/she/it has been doing it. It
has been observed that variation is caused by mutations. If some god is
guiding/causing those mutations then he/she/it has been involved directly
in the genome of everything alive all along for all of those 3.5 billion
years. Or are you a young earth agnostic? Or are you agnostic about the
existence of the genome?
>Bertvan:
>>>You see, I don't really have any objections to
>>>Darwinists, or anyone else, "distorting science and the truth to manipulate
>>>people and the society they live in".
>
>Susan:
>>If you really believe "Darwinists" are doing that you SHOULD object (and
>>expose some acutal instances of it) or you are as immoral as they are.
>
>Bertvan:
>You are good at judging other people's morals and deciding what they should
>and should not do.
Thank you! I always thought so!
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 13:01:27 EDT