Jump to content


Photo

No Evidence Could Convince Me Evolution Occured


  • Please log in to reply
224 replies to this topic

#41 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 April 2017 - 01:14 PM

I wonder how many people have been given the opportunity to love their creator since Adam and Eve?

god: believe in me OR DIE ! !
the great many: okay, we believe, we have faith, we KNOW that you are the lord god.
god: not good enough, so i'll just wipe you all out with 40 days of rain, let's see if that corrects my mistake i made earlier.

the above doesn't say much for the perfect omnipotent god does it?
be honest here blitz.

i reiterate, i mean no disrespect here, but these are legitimate questions blitz.

#42 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 April 2017 - 02:20 PM

I haven’t been involved in any debate on this particular thread so not sure how you can even assert that I’m “on the losing end of this discussion”.
Baseless accusations about your style ? So it wasn’t you that started a topic stating that people who accept evolution are mentally retarded (or words to that effect) ?
I don’t make much effort to engage with you on here because you provide little substance in your posts, mainly arguments from personal incredulity and very repetitive ones at that. I prefer creationists like Indydave (who has disappeared for some reason) because at least he will engage with the topic in hand and try to present a scientific rebuttal.
 

*snorts loudly*
 

I don’t and never did believe that a frog turned into a prince. However, multiple lines of evidence (fossil record, comparative anatomy, molecular biology etc.) supports the inference that humans are ultimately derived from a tetrapod ancestor, which also gave rise to frogs.
Of course we don't have a gradual line of fossils from something like Tiktaalik to humans but the pattern of first emergence of fossil types through time fits evolution. And before you claim a circular argument, no matter how much we look in the geological strata, we never find a reptile, mammal, primate, human fossil out of place. For example, we can make the prediction that no mammal will ever be found in the Carboniferous, and every time we look in fresh deposits (creationists can look too), this prediction always holds.
Talking of frogs, why are they (and other amphibians) virtually absent on oceanic islands (that is,formed by volcanic activity, like the Galapagos, Hawaii etc.), even when the habitat is perfect for them (as shown when introduced by humans) but present on continental islands, often with great diversity and high endemism (e.g, Madagascar) ?
If you don’t understand why I’m asking the question, island biogeography is great evidence for evolution and requires special pleading to fit creation.



"I don’t and never did believe that a frog turned into a prince."

Actually, what Darwinists like yourself believe is truly MUCH MUCH more incredible / preposterous / impossible then a frog furning into a prince.. The frog has 4 Limbs, a trunk, a head, digestive system, Brain, lungs, immune system, heart, etc etc etc...The Frog to Prince Fairytale is MUCH MORE Plausible and believable then the delusional codswallop that Your ilk forces onto the public under the deceptive guise of "Science".. You force every single public school biology student to answer that man came from BACTERIA over 1 billion years ago OR THEY FAIL THE TEST...

Intellectual Fascists your mob truly are..


"If you don’t understand why I’m asking the question, island biogeography is great evidence for evolution and requires special pleading to fit creation."

More insanity.. Variation and Adaptation are NOT Evolution

AND

Forcing people to believe that red blood cells can last 100,000,000,years while criticizing them for "Special Pleading" is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy...

#43 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 April 2017 - 02:26 PM

 

 

What If: god: believe in me OR DIE ! !
the great many: okay, we believe, we have faith, we KNOW that you are the lord god.
god: not good enough, so i'll just wipe you all out with 40 days of rain, let's see if that corrects my mistake i made earlier.

 

I think it's either been fifty years since you read what preceded the flood, or you have never read Genesis, and were merely told by anti-atheists what it says. Here is what it actually says before God floods the planet;

 

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the timeThe Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

 

(of course the Lord doesn't have a literal heart or eyes, He is a spirit, but remember the bible employs deliberate anthropomorphism, because it is all people understood. They had no other words, so they used words used for a man, emotions and human parts, it is a shame in modernity, that people think the bible was simplistic and dated because scripture does tell us that God is not a man. The bible was written in rudimentary times, but that was okay, God isn't fussy about using unsophisticated people.)

 

Don't forget, "What If", that what Blitzking said about choosing God, also goes for choosing to trust God in His decisions. While you aren't an atheist you obviously are atheist to Christianity. According to the bible there are those who know the Lord, and those who don't, and all those who don't, by freewill choose to believe that human reason knows better than God.

 

In other words it is very predictable when you offer complaints against the Lord that very much fall in line with all of the other complaints from atheists. Those charges against God are folly, but you choose to believe you know better than the God Who made everything. That is ultimately a choice - a choice to believe that human reason is god.

 

I am pretty much an expert in reason, but I can tell you that human reason usually is best described as reasoning which makes sense to the human, limited mind. Another terminology for the type of reason which is human reason, is sophistry.

 

 

 

wiki and google: A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments.........................the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving...............a fallacious argumen

 

Sometimes it is also known as argumentation which seems to make sense, subjectively. So sophistry might be to jump to conclusions, or to paint God in a deceptive light, by abusing what the bible says BECAUSE it omits so many of God's reasons for what He does.



#44 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 April 2017 - 03:08 PM

I think it's either been fifty years since you read what preceded the flood, or you have never read Genesis, and were merely told by anti-atheists what it says. Here is what it actually says before God floods the planet;
 
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time[color=#0000cd][font=georgia, serif][size=4].

nonsense.
every thought?
all the time?
example:
you are building a safe to protect your valuables from the evil horde of humanity.
you are naturally going to think how a person could be ripped off in order to build a better safe.
by your definition above YOU HAVE JUST SINNED.

6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, . . .

gods all seeing eye must've been blind.

and his heart was deeply troubled.

but yet he still failed, his perfection must've been sleeping.

7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

well, doesn't that beat all. when you regret something YOU KILL IT.
let's not hear any more about abortion, ok?

8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

i thought noah was an alcoholic (or some kind of drug user).

frankly, i do not wish to go this route, so i'll end here.

on the other side of the coin we have.
close to 80% of the people feel they are more than what physical laws can explain.
the placebo effect, which appears to be faith based.
the fact that prayer and meditation has scientifically proven benefits.

the only thing i can say is:
welcome to the headbangers ball.

#45 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 26 April 2017 - 03:19 PM

"I don’t and never did believe that a frog turned into a prince."

Actually, what Darwinists like yourself believe is truly MUCH MUCH more incredible / preposterous / impossible then a frog furning into a prince.. The frog has 4 Limbs, a trunk, a head, digestive system, Brain, lungs, immune system, heart, etc etc etc...The Frog to Prince Fairytale is MUCH MORE Plausible and believable then the delusional codswallop that Your ilk forces onto the public under the deceptive guise of "Science".. You force every single public school biology student to answer that man came from BACTERIA over 1 billion years ago OR THEY FAIL THE TEST...


Argument from personal incredulity is pretty much all you offer isn't it ?

Whichever you way you look at it, Life is amazing, whether specially created by a god or purely as a result of natural processes. I don't see how adding another layer of even more complexity (omnipotent God)helps as an explanation, its just an intellectual cop out. Whether you like it or not, the combined strength of all the different lines of evidence we have tells us that evolution is a fact. Put in God at the abiogenesis starting point if you want, because we don't have a solid theory for that yet but for evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life, we most certainly do.
 

Intellectual Fascists your mob truly are..


You're a very angry chap aren't you ?
 

"If you don’t understand why I’m asking the question, island biogeography is great evidence for evolution and requires special pleading to fit creation."

More insanity.. Variation and Adaptation are NOT Evolution


Why are there over 300 species of frog on Madagascar with 99% being endemic ? Are you going to assert they are all the same species and are just variants that have come about in 4000 years since the flood ?

Why are there no amphibians on oceanic islands ? (islands that have never been part of a continental land mass)

 

Forcing people to believe that red blood cells can last 100,000,000,years while criticizing them for "Special Pleading" is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy...


Its all you ever go on about because its the only thing you've got. We have a myriad of things that show literal creationism is false while the admittedly surprising dino soft tissue finds is constantly brought up ad nauseum because you have nothing else with a hint of veracity to it.



#46 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 April 2017 - 04:06 PM

Whether you like it or not, the combined strength of all the different lines of evidence we have tells us that evolution is a fact.

there is no evidence ANYWHERE that says life arose naturally.
don't start the "that isn't what evolution says" garbage.
there is no evidence ANYWHERE that says life sprang from a single source.
this stuff is an ASSUMPTION wibble.

but yeah, you can certainly say "life is amazing".

my opinion?
science will fail in its attempt at abiogenesis.

as far as tracing genes through deep time (10s of millions of yeas), what genes are we talking about?
the genes that determine how DNA is stored and read perhaps?
of course these genes will be virtually identical to ALL life.

an honest question for you:
given the evidence i presented on how evidence is ignored, and how manuscripts are revised, how much of this stuff can you actually believe?
this is what evolution has done for science.

#47 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 April 2017 - 06:16 PM

Can you describe the experiments that proved the scientific law of Biogenesis and explain what bearing it has on a modern theory of abiogenesis?


So you want to know what bearing the scientific law of Biogenesis has on the theory of Abiogenesis? LOL....Do you even read what you write?

#48 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 26 April 2017 - 06:39 PM

So you want to know what bearing the scientific law of Biogenesis has on the theory of Abiogenesis?

Yes, specifically with respect to the experimental support for that bearing.

This seems like it should be an easy request for someone in the top 1% of people knowledgeable about origins.

#49 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 April 2017 - 07:23 PM

god: believe in me OR DIE ! !the great many: okay, we believe, we have faith, we KNOW that you are the lord god.god: not good enough, so i'll just wipe you all out with 40 days of rain, let's see if that corrects my mistake i made earlier.the above doesn't say much for the perfect omnipotent god does it?be honest here blitz.i reiterate, i mean no disrespect here, but these are legitimate questions blitz.



"the great many: okay, we believe, we have faith, we KNOW that you are the lord god. god: not good enough, so i'll just wipe you all out with 40 days of rain,

"i mean no disrespect here, but these are legitimate questions blitz."

Actually, far from being a question, your little editorial is a FALSE Characterization of the situation during the days of Noah and I suspect you already know that but are more interested in promoting your Anti God agenda/paradigm than being truthful..

VERY FAR FROM your cute little "the great many: okay, we believe, we have faith, we KNOW that you are the lord"

WE HAVE GODS WORD INSTEAD..

“And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

Nice try though.. But did you HONESTLY Think that I was going to let you get away with it and not point out your Deception? I would like to think that you would know me a little better than that by now..

I am convinced that the violence on Earth had become so great that if God would not have saved Noah and his family, Mankind would have extinguished himself..

#50 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 April 2017 - 08:47 PM

Yes, specifically with respect to the experimental support for that bearing.

This seems like it should be an easy request for someone in the top 1% of people knowledgeable about origins.

There are four major concepts in science: facts, hypotheses, laws, and theories," Coppinger told Live Science. "Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton’s Law of Gravity or Mendel’s Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work."
www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

the law of biogenesis is a law because it is always observed to be true.
it does not attempt to explain how or why it's true.

#51 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 April 2017 - 09:14 PM

Yes, specifically with respect to the experimental support for that bearing.This seems like it should be an easy request for someone in the top 1% of people knowledgeable about origins.


Sorry about the top 1% claim..That is not at all accurate..

I am confident, based on past performance debating against Evolutionists and others, that the number is probably much closer to the top .001%, but I really dont feel comfortable boasting about myself so I just use the 1% figure..

"This seems like it should be an easy request.."


It is actually childs play...LOL

You mean "Experimental support" like the failed 1929 Urey and 1953 Miller Experiments that produced a completely STERILE and USELESS Recemic Mix of L/R Handed Amino Acids?? LOL

What is going to come to the rescue of your Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth? RNA World?, Organophilic clay?, Oceanic sea vents? Good Luck..

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."

(Dr. R. Kirk,)

#52 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 April 2017 - 09:15 PM

Actually, far from being a question, your little editorial is a FALSE Characterization of the situation during the days of Noah and I suspect you already know that but are more interested in promoting your Anti God agenda/paradigm than being truthful..

i believe i have been fairly honest.
on top of that, what makes you think i'm "anti god"?
i fail to believe that god wants a pack of minions that never thinks outside the box.
on top of that, what exactly is being implied here, thought control?
ever hear of george orwell?

i've stated it numerous times, i mean no disrespect, and i cannot and will not categorically state "there is no god".

Nice try though.. But did you HONESTLY Think that I was going to let you get away with it and not point out your Deception? I would like to think that you would know me a little better than that by now..

deception?
what deception?

I am convinced that the violence on Earth had become so great that if God would not have saved Noah and his family, Mankind would have extinguished himself..

i doubt if they compare to the atrocities committed by all sides during WW2
the fire bombings of tokyo, dresden, rotterdam, and london to name a few, the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians.
the nuking of hiroshima and nagasaki, where 10s of thousands of japanese lost their lives in a split second.
and you don't call that a murderous rampage?

#53 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:08 PM

Argument from personal incredulity is pretty much all you offer isn't it ?
Whichever you way you look at it, Life is amazing, whether specially created by a god or purely as a result of natural processes. I don't see how adding another layer of even more complexity (omnipotent God)helps as an explanation, its just an intellectual cop out. Whether you like it or not, the combined strength of all the different lines of evidence we have tells us that evolution is a fact. Put in God at the abiogenesis starting point if you want, because we don't have a solid theory for that yet but for evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life, we most certainly do.
 

You're a very angry chap aren't you ?
 

Why are there over 300 species of frog on Madagascar with 99% being endemic ? Are you going to assert they are all the same species and are just variants that have come about in 4000 years since the flood ?
Why are there no amphibians on oceanic islands ? (islands that have never been part of a continental land mass)
 

Its all you ever go on about because its the only thing you've got. We have a myriad of things that show literal creationism is false while the admittedly surprising dino soft tissue finds is constantly brought up ad nauseum because you have nothing else with a hint of veracity to it.



"Its all you ever go on about because its the only thing you've got"

Oh No.. I've got lots more than just your inability to account for "100 MYO" Dino Red Blood Cells.. I've got so much more.. Ive got the fossil record with sudden explosion of every kind of phyla imaginable followed by complete and utter stasis.. I've got your inability to account for Irreducible complexity, Symbiotic Relationships, Interdependent Vital Organic Systems, APPALLING Lack of examples of "Beneficial Mutations", Hummingbirds, Information Science, Plovers, DNA, Giraffes,Polystrate Trees, Woodpeckers, ZERO Transitionals, Monarch Butterflies, 500 MYO "Living Fossils" Bombardier Beetle, Vanishing "Vestigials" the Human Eye, SLOT, "Duplicate Genes" Repairing Mutations, Etc. Etc.. For just a few examples off the tip o me ol noggin... But I guess you probably feel more medicated if you just cling to your "100 MYO Dino Red Blood Cells is "All you got" Paradigm.... LOL


"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..."

(Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology)

#54 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:17 PM

the law of biogenesis is a law because it is always observed to be true.

It hasn't been observed to be true in enough circumstances to support as broad an interpretation as creationists tend to read in to it. If we interpret it as "modern life does not arise from non-living material" (i.e. spontaneous generation is wrong) I'm ok with it. Most people around here seem to want it to mean "life doesn't arise from non-living material ever”, which has two problems. The first is that we don’t have anywhere close to the variety of observations that would be needed to make such a statement, and the second is that it’s logically impossible. At some point in a finite universe, there must have been some kind of first life that didn’t come from reproduction.

it does not attempt to explain how or why it's true.

Not what I’m asking. I’m asking why we expect it to apply here. We know why we expect a thing to follow the laws of motion because we can show that a thing has mass and we’ve tested enough to be able to speak confidently about how mass always (at least approximately) behaves. We know why we expect a thing to follow the laws of thermodynamics because we can show how it’s a heat engine and we’ve tested enough to be able to speak confidently about how heat engines behave. I don’t know why creationists expect a handful experiments from 60-200 years ago to be the definitive word on a broad range of conditions that don’t seem to have much at all to do with those experiments.

You mean "Experimental support" like the failed 1929 Urey and 1953 Miller Experiments that produced a completely STERILE and USELESS Recemic Mix of L/R Handed Amino Acids?? LOL

Ok, so now we know two sets of conditions that don't produce a living thing from a non-living thing. What does that tell us about the rest of the possible conditions?

What is going to come to the rescue of your Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth? RNA World?, Organophilic clay?, Oceanic sea vents? Good Luck..

Do they use Miller or Urey's conditions? If not, on what basis can we say that because those conditions didn't produce life, a different set of conditions won't/can't?

#55 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 27 April 2017 - 02:41 AM

 

 

Popoi: It hasn't been observed to be true in enough circumstances to support as broad an interpretation as creationists tend to read in to it. If we interpret it as "modern life does not arise from non-living material" (i.e. spontaneous generation is wrong) I'm ok with it. Most people around here seem to want it to mean "life doesn't arise from non-living material ever”, which has two problems. The first is that we don’t have anywhere close to the variety of observations that would be needed to make such a statement, and the second is that it’s logically impossible. At some point in a finite universe, there must have been some kind of first life that didn’t come from reproduction.

 

Inductively speaking, the examples of life coming from life are into the billions. Every time someone is born, or any animal reproduces, you have an example that counts. 

 

On the other hand you have ZERO examples of a fictional primordial 'lifeform' coming from a fictional primordial swamp, in a fictional version of earth.

 

That's three pieces of fiction, and zero data.

 

Furthermore, the reason the law of biogenesis is relevant to nature but not the the supernatural, is that we are not claiming that nature can somehow create life. If life can be created naturally, then we have to look at the scientific evidence against that. There is no natural process that creates lifeforms from non-living material, all of the organic chemistry that exists, exists within life, and all of the designed machines exist within the cell.

-----

 

"What If", your complaint about the bible, the Lord God of the bible, was that He slaughtered people in Noah's flood even though they agreed to repent. This is not what the bible says. You want to condemn the God of the bible, but you can't condemn the Lord God of the bible based on something the bible doesn't even say.

 

You now say that the bible is wrong, and all of the people were not wicked, and only thinking of evil things, yet you accept there was a flood and that God killed them.

 

So that basically means your motive is to condemn the God of the bible, even for things it doesn't say He done.

 

If you are going to assume the truth of the bible for argument's sake, you can't say that some of the things it says were true, to suit your argument that the God of the bible is false or evil.

 

Think about it, imagine you were a witness to a crime and you said, "that big fat man called Bob was innocent of murdering the woman, he was with me as we watched someone shoot her and run away." Could I then say; "we accept your testimony, you did see Bob, you did see the woman killed but we can't accept that Bob didn't do it because we want Bob to be the murderer."

 

That doesn't even make any sense. If you are going to condemn the bible, you can't say, "X part of the bible is false, I am changing that history and I am going to say that God murdered a bunch of innocent people that did repent before the flood."

 

Huh?

 

This is where logic can help if you would just begin to study what it means;

 

"if the bible is true inerrantly, then the people were wicked as it said."

 

That follows, so to say "they were not wicked" would mean that the modus tollens would then allow us to conclude that;

 

"therefore the bible is false." (meaning the inerrant God of the bible would also be false(at least that version), so you couldn't still blame Him as He would also be false.)

 

Are you blaming an inerrant bible God by arguing the bible isn't inerrant? (Lol) (I suppose I could also blame the weather by arguing that the weather isn't to blame.)

 

You can't say that the bible is inerrantly true, and false at the same time, because that breaks the law of non-contradiction. 

 

That's your argument - that the bible is false because people can't be fully wicked. We don't accept that as bible believing Christians, because we choose to believe God doesn't lie. You have chosen to conclude that He does lie.

 

(isn't that what I was talking about earlier? A choice.)



#56 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:39 AM

Inductively speaking, the examples of life coming from life are into the billions. Every time someone is born, or any animal reproduces, you have an example that counts. 

That induction can't hold. In a finite universe there must have been some kind of life that came from some process other than biological reproduction. You can count as many turtles as you want, but the conclusion that it's turtles all the way down will remain flawed.

On the other hand you have ZERO examples of a fictional primordial 'lifeform' coming from a fictional primordial swamp, in a fictional version of earth.

From a scientific perspective, there are zero known working examples of the origin of life. Given that life must have had an origin, there's no choice but to speculate. Scientists, being scientists, speculate about natural conditions to explain the phenomenon of life. The mere existence of that speculation after the law was supposedly established seems like a good indicator that it's not considered to be applicable to the question.

#57 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:59 AM

It hasn't been observed to be true in enough circumstances to support as broad an interpretation as creationists tend to read in to it. If we interpret it as "modern life does not arise from non-living material" (i.e. spontaneous generation is wrong) I'm ok with it. Most people around here seem to want it to mean "life doesn't arise from non-living material ever”, . . .

if i'm correct, the law of biogenesis says "life comes from life".
the above has never been shown to be false.
 

. . . which has two problems. The first is that we don’t have anywhere close to the variety of observations that would be needed to make such a statement, . . .


every observation science has made supports biogenesis, every single one.
science has NEVER witnessed life coming from non life, even after countless thousands of observations.
 

. . . and the second is that it’s logically impossible. At some point in a finite universe, there must have been some kind of first life that didn’t come from reproduction.


this is an assumption popoi, a logical assumption to be sure, but an assumption nonetheless.
 

Not what I’m asking. I’m asking why we expect it to apply here. We know why we expect a thing to follow the laws of motion because we can show that a thing has mass and we’ve tested enough to be able to speak confidently about how mass always (at least approximately) behaves. We know why we expect a thing to follow the laws of thermodynamics because we can show how it’s a heat engine and we’ve tested enough to be able to speak confidently about how heat engines behave. I don’t know why creationists expect a handful experiments from 60-200 years ago to be the definitive word on a broad range of conditions that don’t seem to have much at all to do with those experiments.


it isn't just "a handful of experiments".
science has thrown its best engineering minds to the task and dedicated enormous resources to solving this problem.
and they have failed, and furthermore science has no clue as to how life came about.

IOW, abiogenesis has exactly zero evidence to support it, while every observation ever made support biogenesis.

#58 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 27 April 2017 - 10:11 AM

nonsense.every thought?all the time?example:you are building a safe to protect your valuables from the evil horde of humanity.you are naturally going to think how a person could be ripped off in order to build a better safe.by your definition above YOU HAVE JUST SINNED.gods all seeing eye must've been blind.but yet he still failed, his perfection must've been sleeping.well, doesn't that beat all. when you regret something YOU KILL IT.let's not hear any more about abortion, ok?i thought noah was an alcoholic (or some kind of drug user).frankly, i do not wish to go this route, so i'll end here.on the other side of the coin we have.close to 80% of the people feel they are more than what physical laws can explain.the placebo effect, which appears to be faith based.the fact that prayer and meditation has scientifically proven benefits.the only thing i can say is:welcome to the headbangers ball.


"well, doesn't that beat all. when you regret something YOU KILL IT.
let's not hear any more about abortion, ok?"

So you say that God and man have the same authority correct?

God has every right to shorten people lives if he so chooses..

HOWEVER

you equate that with humans murdering little babies for convenience?

Hmmmm...
  • piasan and mike the wiz like this

#59 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 27 April 2017 - 10:31 AM

Argument from personal incredulity is pretty much all you offer isn't it ?
Whichever you way you look at it, Life is amazing, whether specially created by a god or purely as a result of natural processes. I don't see how adding another layer of even more complexity (omnipotent God)helps as an explanation, its just an intellectual cop out. Whether you like it or not, the combined strength of all the different lines of evidence we have tells us that evolution is a fact. Put in God at the abiogenesis starting point if you want, because we don't have a solid theory for that yet but for evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life, we most certainly do.
 

You're a very angry chap aren't you ?
 

Why are there over 300 species of frog on Madagascar with 99% being endemic ? Are you going to assert they are all the same species and are just variants that have come about in 4000 years since the flood ?
Why are there no amphibians on oceanic islands ? (islands that have never been part of a continental land mass)
 

Its all you ever go on about because its the only thing you've got. We have a myriad of things that show literal creationism is false while the admittedly surprising dino soft tissue finds is constantly brought up ad nauseum because you have nothing else with a hint of veracity to it.



"You're a very angry chap aren't you ?"

You are damn right I am angry..

I am extremely angry at people like you who shove your False Religion down the throats of each and every school child as if it were somehow scientific, Brainwashing and indoctrinating them into a Godless paradigm of Metaphysical Naturalism (AKA Fairytale just like this website says) creating generations of confused, hopeless, drug riddled people who have been lied to and defrauded into believing that they have no hope, because "Science" has duped them into believing that the BEST they can hope for when they die is nothingness.. And the WORST is Hell.. People like you are Satan's Soldiers doing the Devils Dirty Work through deception.. At least you have the guts to come on here and get hammered with logic with people who know the truth.. Take your poison of Evolution away from our kids..

"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."


300 species of the same kind of frog?
Wow, that is Evolution for sure..
What do you think that they will turn
into in 500 million years? Let me guess..
A Prince? What a Fairytale Evolution is..

Im surprised you didnt even bring up the
2500 different "Species" of Chiclids, a
Certain kind of fish that lives in Africa..

"After chiding the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

(Dr. Loren Eiseley, anthropologist)

#60 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 27 April 2017 - 03:20 PM

"You're a very angry chap aren't you ?"

You are damn right I am angry..

I am extremely angry at people like you who shove your False Religion down the throats of each and every school child as if it were somehow scientific, Brainwashing and indoctrinating them into a Godless paradigm of Metaphysical Naturalism (AKA Fairytale just like this website says) creating generations of confused, hopeless, drug riddled people who have been lied to and defrauded into believing that they have no hope, because "Science" has duped them into believing that the BEST they can hope for when they die is nothingness.. And the WORST is Hell.. People like you are Satan's Soldiers doing the Devils Dirty Work through deception.. At least you have the guts to come on here and get hammered with logic with people who know the truth.. Take your poison of Evolution away from our kids..


Calm down old boy, you'll give yourself a hernia. I don't know anyone who is YEC, none of my friends, colleagues or family. As far as I know they all accept evolution as true. It's a bit different here in England than in America, because the vast majority of parents don't you shove bible literalism down the throats of their kids and get consumed into the culture of believe or you're going to Hell. I also know no one who is "confused, hopeless or drug riddled" and I'm pretty sure Americans who accept evolution don't have a propensity for these things either.

Show me the studies that prove evolutionists can be categorised in this way or admit your foaming at the mouth rant is baseless.

If people can't cope with the thought of nothingness when they die then that's probably going to be a factor in why they believe but has no bearing on that belief actually being true. Just enjoy your life and be nice to people and the planet, if God consigns you to hell for that then that's a very poor reflection on his character I reckon and he should take a good hard look at himself and maybe have some counselling for anger issues.

 

300 species of the same kind of frog?
Wow, that is Evolution for sure..


Do you agree they are different species ? Why are there so many endemic species on islands ?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users