Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some have argued that the mindless randomness is adequate an explanation and will not listen to this type of argument and are 'bored' by it (it does not entertain them apparently) and complain about there being 'too many words' and other methods of deflection away from these relative points.
There is no thing exactly like any other thing in this universe. It has yet to be explained to me how come, if things are random accidents of nature (without intelligent compulsion) that this randomness has not randomly provided things which are exactly like each other, occasionally.
One would think that if things were truly random then it would be the case that there would be some things which were exactly the same as other things. But there are none. Thus, it is more likely that some intelligent design is behind the unfolding reality of this universe.
Even so, this does not conclude that religions are correct in their assumptions regarding that intelligence either.
In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexander Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, "no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction." In 6 years since then has this fundamental truth changed?
Yes it has changed tremendously since 2008. We now know that the discoveries of catalytic RNA and of molecular fossils closely related to nucleic acids suggest that nucleic acids (and specifically, RNA) were crucial to Earth's first life.
These observations support the RNA world hypothesis, that early life used RNA for basic cellular processes (instead of the mix of proteins, RNA, and DNA used by modern organisms).
Now insert the findings that RNA is self-replicating. The enzyme also can cross-replicate with a partner enzyme, resulting in their mutual exponential growth and enabling self-sustained Darwinian evolution.
Yes it has changed tremendously since 2008. We now know that the discoveries of catalytic RNA and of molecular fossils closely related to nucleic acids suggest that nucleic acids (and specifically, RNA) were crucial to Earth's first life.
These observations support the RNA world hypothesis, that early life used RNA for basic cellular processes (instead of the mix of proteins, RNA, and DNA used by modern organisms).
Now insert the findings that RNA is self-replicating. The enzyme also can cross-replicate with a partner enzyme, resulting in their mutual exponential growth and enabling self-sustained Darwinian evolution.
How much education does one need to believe God? I didn't know one had to have a PhD in order to believe the historic creation account in the Scriptures. It's not a lie. It's the truth. The lie is evolution.
Once again you feel you have to put someone down in order to make a point. That shows a distinct weakness in your argument which, in fact, is no argument at all.
You are absolutely right, there is no education required to believe in myths, but most of us stop believing in fairy tales by age 6 to 8.
The problem is: 1- It makes sense and 2- is true.
Two concepts which can never dent the fundashield of the bible idolator.
The impermeability of which we see on display here every day.
"fundashield of the bible idolator" . . . Your word play is quite entertaining, Trout.
I am not what you might think of as a creationist. Many creationists believe that the universe and the earth and all life on it were created in six 24-hour days some, 10,000 years ago. This, however, is not what the bible teaches.
Oh yes it is. If you say it says something else, you have written your own Bible
Quote:
Also, creationists have embraced many doctrines that lack support in the Bible. Furthermore, in some lands the term "creationist" is synonymous with Fundamentalist groups that actively engage in politics. These groups attempt to pressure politicians, judges, and educators into adopting laws and teachings that conform to the creationists' religious code. They reject credible scientific evidence that contradicts their view. As a result, the teaching of creationism actually discredits the Bible, making it appear unreasonable and inaccurate.
Well I can't dispute with you there.
Quote:
SOONER OR LATER, ALL OF US NEED TO CONFRONT THE QUESTION, WAS LIFE CREATED, OR DID IT EVOLVE?
Of course. There is research going on into how life might have got started. Nothing is proven for sure.
Quote:
The kinds of animals and plants created by God have obviously undergone changes and have produced variations within the kinds. In many cases, the resulting life-forms are remarkably different from one another. The Bible account of creation does not conflict with the scientific observation that variations occur within a kind.
Well, it does rather, because it mentions specifically whales and cattle, not to mention winged fowls, which did not appear until after the Jurassic. Quite apart from the flat -earth cosmology and the wrong -order Creation, it clearly says that all the critters pretty much as they are today were made all in one go. I have to side with the Creationists here, rather than you as they at least bite the bullet and deny the shedloads of evidence that debunks Genesis rather than try to fiddle it to try to get it to fit evolution.
Quote:
Many who believe in evolution would tell you that billions of years ago, life began on the edge of an ancient tidal pool or deep in the ocean. They feel that in some such location, chemicals spontaneously assembled into bubble like structures, formed complex molecules, and began replicating. They believe that all life on earth originated by accident from one or more of these "simple" original cells. Other equally respected scientists who also support evolution disagree. they speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexander Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, "no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction." In 6 years since then has this fundamental truth changed?
Quite so. Because nobody knows for sure, Panspermia is as good a theory as Abiogenesis or Goddunnit -creation. Actually Abiogenesis has a lot more supportive evidence, but no proof as yet.
Quote:
The theory of evolution tries to account for the origin of life on earth without the necessity of divine intervention. To quote one of the supporters here "I don't really do divine".
No. a fundamental problem in talking to evolution skeptics - who are nearly always basing that on Bible -belief. Evolution -theory produces the best explanation that fits the evidence. It does NOT set out to disprove God. And in fact it does not and cannot. That is why they do not do divine - it is irrelevant to the theory. Until you Believers understand this you are never going to be able to discuss evolution without monumental bias.
Quote:
However, the more that scientists discover about life, the less likely it appears that it could arise by chance.
In fact the more they discover (RNA -DNA, Chemical evolution, Thermo -2 -driven selection for evolutionary processes) the more probable it looks that it occurred through unplanned random occurrences. 'Chance' is misunderstanding and overlooks the known physical processes. I think you will find that the 'less -likely' claim is wishful -thinking by creationist apologetics. It is certainly not true and hasn't been for a couple of decades.
Quote:
To sidestep this dilemma, some evolutionary scientists would like to make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the question of the origin of life. But does that sound reasonable to you?
Well, yes If we have no evidence about it then it can hardly form part of the theory. But I will go so far as to say that the theoretical models sound very much described in terms of evolution, so I would stick to my view that, if and when Abiogenesis is proven, it WILL become part of evolution theory. Until then it has to remain an hypothesis, not a scientific theory supported by fact, evidence and experiment. And of course how life got started is nothing to do with the explanatory mechanism of the evolution of species over millions of years.The generality of evolution -skeptics would like to make away with the distinction between the theory of evolution and the question of the origin of life because the latter is a lot easier to present as a mere hypothesis leaving the Implication that evolution -theory itself is no better supported. The argument from abiogenesis is, I regret to say, at best misunderstanding, at worst misrepresentation.
(p.s in fact that is pretty much the ploy you make here -
Quote:
The theory of evolution rests on the notion that a long series of fortunate accidents produced life to start with. It then proposes that another series of undirected accidents produced the astonishing diversity and complexity of all living thing.
because Abiogenesis is unproven, by fastening on it an accusation of unfeasability being the reason it is unproven, it can be suggested that evolution theory itself is no more feasible and (by implication) looks as unproven as Abiogenesis. Do I have to labour the point of how wonky (I am being very polite, here ) this argument is?)
The evidence pretty much proves that two major extinctions (and a number of minor ones) were needed to firstly give dinosaurs a chance to dominate, and then mammals. It seems likely that some climate changes that damn' near wiped out humans concentrated the mind wonderfully enough to survive on their wits. I'd say that evidence powerfully suggests a programme of fortunate accidents, wouldn't you?
Quote:
However, if the foundation of the theory is missing, what happens to the other theories that are built on this assumption? Just as a skyscraper built without a foundation would collapse, a theory of evolution that cannot explain the origin of life will crumble.
But as I explained the skyscraper is not built on the idea that a god could not have created life. That is the 'basis' you have falsely assigned to it in the hopes of seeing it collapse. It does not, because it is in fact built on the evidence - which is rock solid.
It is, however, the case that creationism is an edifice built on the belief a god dunnit and that is why it has collapsed time and again and only refusal to face facts keeps them claiming that this phantom skyscraper of Bible -based goddunnit -creation is still standing.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-12-2015 at 05:11 AM..
Reason: much needed editing, correction, additions
See folks, this is exactly what I'm talking about. When someone gets themselves painted into a corner they strike out at the very one who can help them. They use put-downs and every other conceivable attempt against the very one who can help them. Pity.
Remember, you're the one who believe in the unproven idea of evolution, not me.
Reverse that to apply to yourself and Genesis -literalist Creationism and where you are coming from is amply explained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
I saw that too!
If you look even closer you will see Fred Flinstone and Barney on the dino!
I sometimes believe that you truly love to just wind us darn evilooshunists up..
I must say I am perversely intrigued by your Flintstones Experience park list of Dinosaurs depicted by men.
I do have other things to do, but it would be very interesting to give a list and the details of provenacne, type, similar other artwork and date - always the date.
It is (remarkably) like the Alien scientists built the pyramids argument. It depends not on a coherent hypothesis but -as you ably demonstrated - a wordsalad of faith -based denial strung together. And the only evidence for this denial of the established history (or palaeontology) is a lot of stuff that science can't explain - in fact - like how the Sacsayhuaman stones were made without tools and just what that Ta Phrom carving is if it isn't a Stegosaur (maybe I'll find out when I go there there early next year).
We can wrangle for pages about whether the Babylon dragons or the Chinese Unicorn really can be claimed as Dinosaurs living with men, as we can about monolithic architecture and apparently huge undersea pyramids.
But what seems to be persistently overlooked is the date. So long as these things are "Inexplicable by Science" and are "Ancient" it doesn't seem to matter whether they come from 2nd Millennium Egypt and Babylon, 2nd c Greek or Roman times or Medieval Mesoamerica, 13th c Cambodia or 14th century China.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-12-2015 at 05:42 AM..
And I almost hate to ask ,but just what are these 'massive walls' that you speak of? Sacsayhuaman, I would remind was built when the Spanish invaded Peru.
And I almost hate to tell you, but if you even knew how to use any search engine you could easily find the information yourself. But since you can't, here is just one page:
Go to your favorite search engine and type in "Massive ancient walls" and then hit the "search" button. I'm sure "search" is spelled the same way in your country.
You said: "a wordsalad of faith . . . ."
I actually like your ingenuity with words. Thanks for the smile.
Oh, for Christ's sake. You'll believe anything as long as it's completely crazy, and the crazier it is the better. I followed your link, and I don't even need to look up the rocks. It's obvious from the photos that those are completely natural granite formations. Have you ever been outside? Ever seen rocks, mountains, etc? That's what they look like.
Yes it has changed tremendously since 2008. We now know that the discoveries of catalytic RNA and of molecular fossils closely related to nucleic acids suggest that nucleic acids (and specifically, RNA) were crucial to Earth's first life.
These observations support the RNA world hypothesis, that early life used RNA for basic cellular processes (instead of the mix of proteins, RNA, and DNA used by modern organisms).
Now insert the findings that RNA is self-replicating. The enzyme also can cross-replicate with a partner enzyme, resulting in their mutual exponential growth and enabling self-sustained Darwinian evolution.
And I almost hate to tell you, but if you even knew how to use any search engine you could easily find the information yourself. But since you can't, here is just one page:
Go to your favorite search engine and type in "Massive ancient walls" and then hit the "search" button. I'm sure "search" is spelled the same way in your country.
You said: "a wordsalad of faith . . . ."
I actually like your ingenuity with words. Thanks for the smile.
I would do so, but I think you should do your own searching. I am too busy doing you reasoning for you.
"So-called 'megalithic' ruins in Russia are nothing more than misunderstood geology. The granite boulders of Mount Shoria in southern Siberia demonstrate a common feature of granite upthrusts: cracks forming fairly straight horizontal and vertical lines. This gives the appearance of cut stones that have been put together (doubtlessly by some lost, advanced civilization--and the 'government' is keeping it from you!). Combine this misidentification with some repurposed images from other locations and you have the makings of an Internet Urban Legend."
Got anything better than just some Stunning Science -stumping photos that you haven't bothered to do even minimal research on?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-12-2015 at 08:59 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If we have no evidence about it then it can hardly form part of the theory. But I will go so far as to say that the theoretical models sound very much described in terms of evolution, so I would stick to my view that, if and when Abiogenesis is proven, it WILL become part of evolution theory. Until then it has to remain an hypothesis, not a scientific theory supported by fact, evidence and experiment. And of course how life got started is nothing to do with the explanatory mechanism of the evolution of species over millions of years.The generality of evolution -skeptics would like to make away with the distinction between the theory of evolution and the question of the origin of life because the latter is a lot easier to present as a mere hypothesis leaving the Implication that evolution -theory itself is no better supported. The argument from abiogenesis is, I regret to say, at best misunderstanding, at worst misrepresentation.
) this argument is?)