Jump to content


Photo

Why Atheistic Evolution Is A Myth


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#121 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 20 December 2010 - 11:37 AM

i will disagree with that, but i can see how you would consider it to be that way.

the brain has the essential ingredience to be intelligent - a chimp's brain is almost identical to ours, its just the way we use ours that gives us supposed intelligence whereas they are stuck supposedly without it.


Emphasis mine. That's a lot of "supposing" you're doing.
Try and remember, supposing anything is not the "evidence" required to support said suppositions.

and just like in any evolution case, more intelligence will be selected for until the population is very intelligent.

View Post


Where do you get this from? How do you know that "more intelligence will be selected for...? Who says so? Is this something "observed" or something "said"?

If all you have is suppositions and something "said", then all you have is "opinion", NOT the kind of "evidence" required to support a Macro-evolutionary event. Can you not see that?

#122 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2010 - 11:49 AM

**Mod Hat**

Some posts have been removed from this thread for equivocation and time wasting.

More will likely go as well.

#123 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 20 December 2010 - 12:55 PM

There is order in that mammals and reptiles are generally higher, but they are also a small minority in the record.  They are also land animals, and would have been higher when the flood started.  Marine life was underwater, and did not escape the sediment that covered them.  The land animals were seeking to stay on top of the water, and so less of them were covered.

View Post


The Bible tells us that the flood covered all the world so ALL land animals that were not on the Ark would have drowned and sunk to the bottom of the ocean. For this to be true we would observe land animal specimins across all the geological layers (save the very lowest "pre-flood layer") and not just the most recent. That we do not observe this discredits the worldwide flood.

#124 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 20 December 2010 - 01:01 PM

Do you know of any self replicating molecules that also encode protein?  The only thing I know about is something that produces more RNA--not protein.  A self replicating molecule is not life, and if does not have additional help, it will alwys be just a purposeless nano program.

So you had to have more spontaneous synthesis of proteinS, to make whatever you would propose, possibly enzymes (very large macromolecules) and membranes, until the RNA started encoding proteins itself.

SO once wouldn't have been enough. You need many many proteins which have the proper binding sites to make a membrane.

It has been shown here that one 60 amino acid protein would have approximately 10 ^ 78 combinations.  And you need it to happen many many times--spontaneously making the proper proteins for even the simplest of life. 


The earliest self-replicators just needed to self-replicate. More complex functions like encoding protein could have arisen later as adaptations that improved stablity, fertility etc. This is in line with the evolutionary model of change due to mutation and natural selection.

It takes much more faith to propose such a thing happened out of unguided chemistry, than for me to believe that God created life whole and spontaneous.  And it makes more sense.

View Post



You know that chemical reactions can occur due to observation. God is not observed and if existing would raise many unanswerable questions: where did He come from?, how does He relate to the natural world? etc.

#125 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 December 2010 - 04:07 PM

1. Not tests, i simply made it clear to people what i was referring to.

2. ah trolling how fun
Yes i believe in gravity, but that has nothing to do with life now does it.

I never claimed it had nothing do do with it but thanks for the strawman. I simply claimed that scientists can disagree on things. But apparently you live in a magical world where ever one agrees al the time.

3.yes it is, if you know how to look.

4. No i'm saying one does need to be a eye witness to what ever your trying to observe. There are other methods of observing that provide results that are just as accurate.

5. So at what point does it say only a eyewitness qualifies as this?
yes it is so this isn't a issue.

6. Simple bye adapting my beliefs. I'm not so hung up on "being right" that this is a problem. It also sounds like your saying that basing a belief on any form of science is a bad idea. What else can i do? Believe in something despite some one haven proven my belief is false?

7. Very true, and when people learn more about what happened they change there model. They don't know everything, but they know more then any one else (as long as there model is correct at least.)

View Post


1. No you weren't since in post 118 you replied

"Some people here make the distinction thats why i used it. And i was just curious if you realized what you where saying."

When I responded (in post 115) about your deviation from the topic at hand and making conclusions that didn't fit what was being talked about.

Your post #114... "Really? so your more then willing to accept that evolution happened trough natural selection as long as the origin is not abiogenesis? So are you admitting evolution (both micro and macro) are actually correct?"

My post #115... "I said NOTHING about macro / micro, hence I don't see how it pertains to this conversation at all."


Hence you weren't refering to anything as you were asking me a question, on the deviated topic...


2. How is my reply trolling? I answered your question with a legitimate answer and all you can do in reply is use ad hominem to try and disuade the point.

In post 118 you asked me to...

"look for a theory that does conform to reality. But like you said thats a if."

and I did that. Gravity conforms to reality... All I did was answer your question and somehow that is trolling... hmm..

3. Until you give an example then one-liners like that do nothing to improve your credability... In fact you are losing credability as you haven't produced any examples, rather you just continue to say it is so... As if by saying things make them the truth :)

4. Did you not read the definition of empirical I gave you.

"provable or verifiable by experience or experiment" ... experiments are observable... experiencing something is first-hand evidence, also observation...

Can you back up your claims, by posting some examples? Or do you just say stuff in the wind and expect others to take it as Law?

5. Read point number 4. Plus again you say that evolution is observed but give no examples, to back up your statement.

6. No, do what I do... Don't believe science is an absolute fact for start, and take things with a grain of salt. If you come across a "theory" that defies natural laws, defies the scientific method, defies reality and is not observable then the better part of logic would tell me to steer clear of that shoddy "theory".

7. You said "but they know more then any one else (as long as there model is correct at least.)"

So you have FAITH that they know everything then... All humans are fallible.

Yet how can their model be "correct" when the data is changing, hence nothing in science can be absolute fact. Thus you cannot create a solid belief system on it.

#126 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 20 December 2010 - 10:53 PM

Actually, quite the opposite. Since a smaller organism is less complex, it has less parts, and therefore, mutations are not so prominently featured that go as far as to change the physical appearance of the organism. Were talking about Bacteria, viruses, these things are decepitvely simple and dont have many specific physical characteristics or individual parts that require it to function perfectly. As opposed to a larger animal, which has different and multiple physical characteristics, with a complex array of different parts that work in tandem with each other to produce a working body.

Think of it as this. The simpler a machine is, the more easier it is for you to reproduce it without making a mistake. But the more complex a machine becomes, and the chances of making a mistake increase, because of all the complex parts required. And, the more complex the machine is, the more types of mistakes you can make.

View Post


I don't understand. Wouldn't the success rate of a random mutation be better for a simpler organism, like bacteria, rather than a complex integrated system like humans? Also the more complicated species have requires s@x which creates problems with fixation, doesn't it?

#127 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 21 December 2010 - 04:50 AM

The earliest self-replicators just needed to self-replicate. 

View Post


You were there????

Also, for a molecule to “self-replicate”, something had to initiate the first molecule. Then something had to encode the information for it to “START” self-replicating. And that is the atheist’s logical, rational and scientific conundrum. Because it flies in the face of ALL science, and bumps up against logic, falls backward and fails.

More complex functions like encoding protein could have arisen later as adaptations that improved stablity, fertility etc.  This is in line with the evolutionary model of change due to mutation and natural selection.

View Post


There is absolutely NO evidence that encoding proteins are not as they’ve always been. Therefore your comment above is purely conjecture and “a priori” presupposition. In other words, YOU as an atheistic believer in evolution, need it to be less complex, then “evolve” to become more complex, for it to fall in line with “the evolutionary model of change”. And, unfortunately, conjecture is all you have.

You know that chemical reactions can occur due to observation. 

View Post


Chemical reactions cannot occur DUE TO observation. That is illogical, and unscientific. If a chemical reaction occurs, it can be observed; but the observation has absolutely nothing to do (or, is in no way a catalyst) to cause the chemical reaction!

God is not observed and if existing would raise many unanswerable questions:  where did He come from?, how does He relate to the natural world? etc.

View Post


Not unanswerable at all. And this is not a conundrum for the theist at all, but for the atheist!

Why? Because, if God were created; that would mean that there is just a greater God! And the atheistic faith in “nothing” still fails due to their illogical and blinding lack of philosophical foundation.

The bottom line is this; ALL the evidence points toward a Prime Mover/Creator. And, as we extend this out and out, there had to be ONE that caused it all. And It/HE did not cause Itself/Himself, for that would be illogical.

And, as to your question “how does He relate to the natural world?”, quite simply; in the same exact way you or I relate to anything we create. As our disposition dictates!
For example: I compose (or write/create) music, lyrics and poetry. I can do with that creation as I wish, because it is MY creation.

#128 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 21 December 2010 - 10:18 AM

You know that chemical reactions can occur due to observation.  God is not observed and if existing would raise many unanswerable questions:  where did He come from?, how does He relate to the natural world? etc.

View Post


Where did God come from? God is eternal, he didn't come from anything.

The questions is if there is always a cause and effect, what is the first cause? If the cause is finite, than there always has to be preceding cause that created the preceding cause and so on and so forth. The only way to stop the cascading effect is that something has to be eternal: Either God or the universe. Since we know the universe had a beginning we are left with the one eternal first cause - GOD.

#129 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 21 December 2010 - 10:45 AM

I think macro-evolution occurs because of the evidence of biogeography and phylogeny and the distribution of fossils through the geological layers. 

View Post


And that, is what is known as a “Faith Statement”, due to a lack of any direct evidence, and based on mere opinion alone.

Creationists say these evidences are based on presuppositions but do not say what these presuppositions are.

View Post


Quite simply stated; the evolutionists sees distribution of fossils, posits a fictitious “geological tree”, and claims Wah-lah!!! Macro-evolution (like magic!!! Just add evolution)!

The Creationists sees the distribution of fossils laid down in rock layers all over the Earth, and says “evidence of a world-wide flood” as recorded by many-many historic civilizations.

BOTH presuppose the outcome, but the latter has, at least a modicum of evidence.

The evolutionist sees the various kinds/species and posits (without empirical evidence mind you) development “over vast and presupposed amounts of time” of a species, genus, or group, as contrasted with the development of an individual ontogeny.

The Creationist sees the common design of kinds/species, and realizes that there is no evidence of these kinds/species being any different throughout recorded history, and therefore refuse to call “guesses” facts!

#130 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 21 December 2010 - 03:04 PM

You were there????

Also, for a molecule to “self-replicate”, something had to initiate the first molecule. Then something had to encode the information for it to “START” self-replicating. And that is the atheist’s logical, rational and scientific conundrum. Because it flies in the face of ALL science, and bumps up against logic, falls backward and fails.
There is absolutely NO evidence that encoding proteins are not as they’ve always been. Therefore your comment above is purely conjecture and “a priori” presupposition. In other words, YOU as an atheistic believer in evolution, need it to be less complex, then “evolve” to become more complex, for it to fall in line with “the evolutionary model of change”. And, unfortunately, conjecture is all you have.


Obviously I'm talking hypothetically. I was outlining the shared features of the abiogenesis hypotheses in response to Mama's post. The reaction leading to a self-replicating molecule would require energy, a fluid environment, building blocks and possibly a catalyst. This is no different from any other reaction and the "code" is the molecule's structure.



Chemical reactions cannot occur DUE TO observation. That is illogical, and unscientific. If a chemical reaction occurs, it can be observed; but the observation has absolutely nothing to do (or, is in no way a catalyst) to cause the chemical reaction!


I meant that the knowledge was due to observation (not the reactions).


Not unanswerable at all. And this is not a conundrum for the theist at all, but for the atheist!

Why? Because, if God were created; that would mean that there is just a greater God! And the atheistic faith in “nothing” still fails due to their illogical and blinding lack of philosophical foundation.

The bottom line is this; ALL the evidence points toward a Prime Mover/Creator. And, as we extend this out and out, there had to be ONE that caused it all. And It/HE did not cause Itself/Himself, for that would be illogical.

View Post


The quantum effects leading to mutual repulsion and the creation of energy in inflationary theory do not require causation.

#131 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 21 December 2010 - 03:13 PM

And that, is what is known as a “Faith Statement”, due to a lack of any direct evidence, and based on mere opinion alone. 


How can it be a faith statement when it draws upon direct evidence? You do not need to see a reptile turning into a bird to be persuaded by observation of genetic relatedness forming nested hierarchies.

Quite simply stated; the evolutionists sees distribution of fossils, posits a fictitious “geological tree”, and claims Wah-lah!!! Macro-evolution (like magic!!! Just add evolution)!

The Creationists sees the distribution of fossils laid down in rock layers all over the Earth, and says “evidence of a world-wide flood” as recorded by many-many historic civilizations.

BOTH presuppose the outcome, but the latter has, at least a modicum of evidence.

The evolutionist sees the various kinds/species and posits (without empirical evidence mind you) development “over vast and presupposed amounts of time” of a species, genus, or group, as contrasted with the development of an individual ontogeny.

The Creationist sees the common design of kinds/species, and realizes that there is no evidence of these kinds/species being any different throughout recorded history, and therefore refuse to call “guesses” facts!

View Post


The only presupposition paleontologists make is that lower specimins fossilized earlier that higher ones. The TOE predicts when various lines should emerge across the geological column and no finding has yet falsified this.

#132 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 22 December 2010 - 12:45 AM

How can it be a faith statement when it draws upon direct evidence?  You do not need to see a reptile turning into a bird to be persuaded by observation of genetic relatedness forming nested hierarchies.


The only presupposition paleontologists make is that lower specimins fossilized earlier that higher ones.  The TOE predicts when various lines should emerge across the geological column and no finding has yet falsified this.

View Post


Care to show us some of this "direct evidence"? :huh:

Actually evolution is presupposed by palentologists when the fossil record shows long periods of statis and short periods of "rapid change"... Under a gradualism view of Darwinism this evidence goes against that theory...

(Hence why punctuated equilibrium was thought up, however it runs into its own problems with mutation rate and fixation rate of larger mutations)

#133 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 December 2010 - 04:57 AM

Obviously I'm talking hypothetically. 

View Post


Actually, you were responding to AFJ (in post# 135), and he was asking you a factual question “Do you know of any self replicating molecules that also encode protein?” that pointed out “factual flaws" in your hypothesis, and you continued to reply with “hypothetical” answers???

So it was not as obvious as you’d make out, is it… Actually, it was pretty obvious, but not in the manner you seemed to intend I guess.

I was outlining the shared features of the abiogenesis hypotheses in response to Mama's post.  The reaction leading to a self-replicating molecule would require energy, a fluid environment, building blocks and possibly a catalyst.  This is no different from any other reaction and the "code" is the molecule's structure.

View Post


There are no actual “shared features” in a hypothesis (since a hypothesis is fictitious), and it wasn’t mama it was AFJ. Also, your statement begs the questions:

1- What guided the “First” molecule into existence in the first place (so it could self-replicate)?

2- Where did the “First” molecule get the code to self-replicate?

I could go on, but these are enough to get you scrambling for more hypotheses (instead of facts), to cover your faith statements.


And, as AFJ so aptly put it:

It takes much more faith to propose such a thing happened out of unguided chemistry, than for me to believe that God created life whole and spontaneous.  And it makes more sense.

View Post


I meant that the knowledge was due to observation (not the reactions).

View Post


That’s what I would have assumed, but I didn’t want to put words in your mouth.

The quantum effects leading to mutual repulsion and the creation of energy in inflationary theory do not require causation.

View Post


That is incorrect, because you are speaking of something that requires “causation” (see cause and effect). You can get caught up in that tautology if you wish, but it will be totally exposed.

Also, your statement is self-refuting because you cannot say that one contingent item (energy) requires causation, while other contingent items (quantum effects and mutual repulsion) do not.

#134 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 December 2010 - 05:11 AM

How can it be a faith statement when it draws upon direct evidence?  You do not need to see a reptile turning into a bird to be persuaded by observation of genetic relatedness forming nested hierarchies.

View Post


Because:

First – Neither you, nor anyone else has provided “direct evidence” of a reptile “evolving” into a bird. The only evidence provided has been presupposition and “a priori” faith statements. So a good start , would be for you to provide all of this “Direct Evidence”!

Second – ALL life on Earth has “genetic relatedness” of some form or another. We humans have “genetic relatedness” to fruit flies and bananas; does that mean you have fruit flies and bananas in your lineage?

The only presupposition paleontologists make is that lower specimins fossilized earlier that higher ones. 

View Post


So, paleontologists actually observed other claims “like reptiles evolving into birds” then? I’d really love to see the evidence of those observations.

The TOE predicts when various lines should emerge across the geological column and no finding has yet falsified this.

View Post


The “TOE” doesn’t predict anything, evolutionists presuppose based upon “a priori” hypotheses, and then fluidly adjust their "predictions" as the wind blows (see punctuated equilibrium)! If this weren’t the case, you’d actually provide all of this “Direct Evidence” you’ve been claiming you have.

Instead, you just keep attempting to back up your "just so" statements with more "faith".

#135 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 December 2010 - 08:53 AM

How can it be a faith statement when it draws upon direct evidence?  You do not need to see a reptile turning into a bird to be persuaded by observation of genetic relatedness forming nested hierarchies.


I'll use the usual evo cop out and say: It just a coincidence that they are genetic relatedness.

The only presupposition paleontologists make is that lower specimins fossilized earlier that higher ones.  The TOE predicts when various lines should emerge across the geological column and no finding has yet falsified this.

View Post


Yet they found T-rex blood. Guess that's a coincidence also?

#136 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 December 2010 - 11:04 AM

How can it be a faith statement when it draws upon direct evidence?  You do not need to see a reptile turning into a bird to be persuaded by observation of genetic relatedness forming nested hierarchies.


I'll use the usual evo cop out and say: It just a coincidence that they are genetic relatedness.

The only presupposition paleontologists make is that lower specimins fossilized earlier that higher ones.  The TOE predicts when various lines should emerge across the geological column and no finding has yet falsified this.

View Post


Yet they found T-rex blood. Guess that's a coincidence also?

View Post



:mellow: Random Genetic Relativity!

The question then, becomes: When is a faith statement not a faith statement?

Answer: When the faithful deny that its a faith statement!

#137 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 22 December 2010 - 11:15 AM

Yet they found T-rex blood. Guess that's a coincidence also?

View Post


Nah, it just proves that these tissues can last millions of years... the experimental data was wrong.

What? We shouldn't assume that experimental data is wrong? You want new experiments to disprove the old ones? Whatever for? :)

I'll use the usual evo cop out and say: It just a coincidence that they are genetic relatedness.

You mean like when "convergent evolution" gives unrelated animals the same trait with the same genetic code?

http://www.icr.org/a...t-echolocation/

Oh yeah... coincidence. :mellow:

#138 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 December 2010 - 05:03 AM

Nah, it just proves that these tissues can last millions of years... the experimental data was wrong.

What? We shouldn't assume that experimental data is wrong? You want new experiments to disprove the old ones? Whatever for?  :P

You mean like when "convergent evolution" gives unrelated animals the same trait with the same genetic code?

http://www.icr.org/a...t-echolocation/

Oh yeah... coincidence. :mellow:

View Post


:)

#139 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 23 December 2010 - 12:02 PM

There are no actual “shared features” in a hypothesis (since a hypothesis is fictitious), and it wasn’t mama it was AFJ.


There are shared features between the various abiogenesis hypotheses (plural) which I initially outlined in response to Mama's post.

1- What guided the “First” molecule into existence in the first place (so it could self-replicate)?


No guidance, chance reactions due to energy from the Sun, building blocks in a fluid environment etc.

2- Where did the “First” molecule get the code to self-replicate?


The "code" is its inherent structure.

That is incorrect, because you are speaking of something that requires “causation” (see cause and effect). You can get caught up in that tautology if you wish, but it will be totally exposed.

Also, your statement is self-refuting because you cannot say that one contingent item (energy) requires causation, while other contingent items (quantum effects and mutual repulsion) do not.

View Post


No, I'm stating that quantum effects do not require causation but that they cause energy and mutual repulsion.

The only evidence provided has been presupposition and “a priori” faith statements.  So a good start , would be for you to provide all of this “Direct Evidence”!



You know the evidence - phylogeny, biogeography, the distribution of fossils through the geological column - but all you ever say is that they require presuppositions and no presuppositions are ever identified.

ALL life on Earth has “genetic relatedness” of some form or another. We humans have  “genetic relatedness” to fruit flies and bananas; does that mean you have fruit flies and bananas in your lineage? 


Yes, not direct ancestors but distant relatives.

So, paleontologists actually observed other claims “like reptiles evolving into birds” then? I’d really love to see the evidence of those observations.


Don't know what you mean, plaeontologists unearth specimins and do not observe their appearance in layers earlier than they shoul be.

The “TOE” doesn’t predict anything, evolutionists presuppose based upon “a priori” hypotheses, and then fluidly adjust their "predictions" as the wind blows (see punctuated equilibrium)! 

View Post


The phrase "the theory predicts" is a mainstay of scientific discourse. The TEO has been enriched by further discoveries: genetics, epigenesis etc.

#140 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 December 2010 - 12:30 PM

There are shared features between the various abiogenesis hypotheses (plural) which I initially outlined in response to Mama's post.

View Post


You response was a direct reply to AFJ’s post (as I provided). You may want to go back and read it before you proceed.


No guidance, chance reactions due to energy from the Sun, building blocks in a fluid environment etc.

View Post


The above is a faith statement, and nothing more unless you provide empiric evidence of life arising from inanimate matter in the “naturalistic” manner you suggest.

The "code" is its inherent structure.

View Post

Again, another faith statement; and an illogical one at that. The question was “Where did the “First” molecule get the code to self-replicate?” You may want to look up the word “inherent” prior to replying.


No, I'm stating that quantum effects do not require causation but that they cause energy and mutual repulsion.

View Post

If you are going to make a “factual” statement, it is incumbent upon you to provide the “factual” evidences for said statements. In other words; “saying it so, doesn’t make it so”. And your style of equivocation will not last long here.

You know the evidence – phylogeny, biogeography, the distribution of fossils through the geological column -  but all you ever say is that they require presuppositions and no presuppositions are ever identified.

View Post


All you are providing is opinion. If you are going to make a “factual” statement, it is incumbent upon you to provide the “factual” evidences for said statements. In other words; “saying it so, doesn’t make it so”. Again, your style of equivocation will not last long here.


Yes, not direct ancestors but distant relatives.

View Post


You may want to read the forum rules one more time before you go off on dishonest rants like that.


All you’ve done so far is provided the opinions of others, and your faith in them. I’m still awaiting ANY evidence that you have claimed to posses. Is equivocation all you’re providing in this discussion? Dogmatic equivocation at that!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users