Comments on: Anti-(Anti-Evolutionism) http://www.hartogsden.com/archives/47 Underdamped and Dangerous Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:09:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Badgett http://www.hartogsden.com/archives/47/comment-page-1#comment-93 Badgett Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:45:00 +0000 http://www.hartogsden.com/archives/47#comment-93 I was merely suggesting that the lab example could be seen as an argument FOR creationism, in a lawyer sort of way. I agree, however that there is no way to collect evidence that life is always "self-forming" around us, without first affecting its environment. But that dilemma is not covered by my post, and is therefore someone else's problem to puzzle out. I was merely suggesting that the lab example could be seen as an argument FOR creationism, in a lawyer sort of way. I agree, however that there is no way to collect evidence that life is always “self-forming” around us, without first affecting its environment. But that dilemma is not covered by my post, and is therefore someone else’s problem to puzzle out.

]]> By: Nalin http://www.hartogsden.com/archives/47/comment-page-1#comment-92 Nalin Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:19:00 +0000 http://www.hartogsden.com/archives/47#comment-92 The experiment involved a soup of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus (similar to early earth conditions) being sloshed in a large chamber of sulphur-rich seawater. A powerful electric bolt shot through the middle yeilded amino acids.<br/><br/>Of course, we can only simulate such things in laboratory conditions, so the excercise is intrinsically limited, but I'm not sure what you mean by "under the watchful eye of rational, intelligent beings." Why should that matter? <br/><br/>It's a fundamental fact that you need to alter something in some way in order to observe anything about it. This can be accounted for through observations from different angles or methods. But if observation by rational minds invalidates truth, then really, what's the point in wondering about anything?<br/><br/>I guess I'm missing the point of what you were trying to say...? The experiment involved a soup of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus (similar to early earth conditions) being sloshed in a large chamber of sulphur-rich seawater. A powerful electric bolt shot through the middle yeilded amino acids.

Of course, we can only simulate such things in laboratory conditions, so the excercise is intrinsically limited, but I’m not sure what you mean by “under the watchful eye of rational, intelligent beings.” Why should that matter?

It’s a fundamental fact that you need to alter something in some way in order to observe anything about it. This can be accounted for through observations from different angles or methods. But if observation by rational minds invalidates truth, then really, what’s the point in wondering about anything?

I guess I’m missing the point of what you were trying to say…?

]]> By: Badgett http://www.hartogsden.com/archives/47/comment-page-1#comment-91 Badgett Sun, 27 Nov 2005 03:33:00 +0000 http://www.hartogsden.com/archives/47#comment-91 Good points. I will only point out that your "amino acid" citation simply validates the witnessed self-formation of such things under laboratory conditions, and the watchful eye of rational, intelligent beings. Perhaps a different example would have been more suitable. Good points. I will only point out that your “amino acid” citation simply validates the witnessed self-formation of such things under laboratory conditions, and the watchful eye of rational, intelligent beings. Perhaps a different example would have been more suitable.

]]>