Originally posted by: blackangst1
No. That is NOT what I believe. What I DO believe is that whatever changes have happened in terms of RNA and DNA were not random, but intelligently created that way. I guess thats the difference between creationists and evolutionists, on top of origin.
The conundrum lies in that neither side can prove its point. And I concede to that. There is pleny of evidence, although none so conclusive as to make it fact, on both sides. One side says "Look! This virus has mutated and is genetically different than what it was before based on its environment! It evolved!", while the other side says "Look! Because the old virus was no longer effective, a new virus was created!" How do you prove it wasnt? Again it comes back to proof of origin. In this case, evolutionists cannot prove it evolved and was not created.
You said earlier even if evolution was completely proven false, it does not validate creationism. The reverse is true also. Even if creationism is proven false, it does not validate evolution in it's loosest terms.
Just because I believe that organisms all the way up to mankind adapts to its environment doesnt mean I dont believe it doesnt happen by design. In the same way you cannot prove that theory false, I cannot prove it true. Who knows what we will learn in 100 or even 1000 years right? We've learned alot in the last millinium. It doesnt mean we know even close to the total truth.
In the meantime, we disagree. Thats fine. I totally understand the logic and the thinking behind evolution. I just happen to think its wrong. In the same way I understand the logic and the thinking behind those who think the Federal government should provide job guarantees, insurance, blah blah blah, I just happen to think that idea is wrong.
The fact that some evolutionists do NOT explain origin of life is disturbing to me. I really dont understand why a scientific community cannot explain it. Most evolutionists, like you Im sure, think the idea of intelligent design to be a cop out or a crutch or whatever you think. To me, it all boils down to a technical long winded answer : I Dont Know. THAT is just as laughable.
Without attacking you, I am interested in knowing what you believe the origin is. Of course this topic is a whole thread in and of itself, but Im just curious.
Evolution has a plausible causal mechanism for the changes in life that we see. We can replicate these changes in a lab. Saying that a new virus was created has no causal mechanism that is testable other then saying it was poofed into being. Using that logic you can explain away anything in the world. (lightning isn't due to a difference of electrical potential between the clouds and the earth, zeus is throwing then from the sky... and you can't prove that he isn't)
That's the fundamental rub, and that's why ID isn't science. Evolution might not have been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt (although it's pretty close to it), but ID by its very nature can never be proven. Because of the fact it cannot be tested or proven I do not think that any reasonable person can believe it to be true, because if you were to believe things based on such grounds and apply it to other things it would lead to some truly insane assumptions.
In addition, you are right that scientists (not evolutionists) do not know the origin of life. I think when you say that they answer your question with "I don't know", that's only half the story. The real answer is "I don't know, but we're going to try and find out". Creationism/ID just state that they know, and they do so without proof. That's a world of difference.
I really have no idea how life began. I guess I would buy into the whole primordeal soup theory, but I wouldn't do so strongly because there isn't really that much evidence for it. I don't feel like its currently possible to have a really definitive opinion on it. I would have to say that I do not believe that any outside intelligent force had anything at all to do with it though, due to an insurmountable first cause probability problem.