Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Says . . .


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 September 2017 - 06:08 PM

see that pond of sludge over there?
you mark my word, one of these days it will have amassed enough data that it will chart a course and then fly it to the moon and back.

you get the feeling that this might be impossible.

i agree with one of blitz's sources "all evolution is, is a working hypothesis" (paraphrased).

#2 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 27 September 2017 - 09:16 PM

see that pond of sludge over there?

 

Muddy glob? Or mighty God?



#3 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 September 2017 - 11:24 AM

see that pond of sludge over there?

 
Muddy glob? Or mighty God?

that my friend is the 5 million dollar, nobel winning, question.

#4 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 28 September 2017 - 11:25 PM

see that pond of sludge over there?

 Muddy glob? Or mighty God?
that my friend is the 5 million dollar, nobel winning, question.


Not really much of a question.. The Origin of our Finely tuned Universe, Life, and Ultimately Man, MUST BE due to causation via a supernatural intelligence agent... The 5 million dollar question is who or what is the nature / Personhood of this particular supernatural intelligence agent, Moat of us creationists believe it to be the Judeo Christian God of the Bible... We believe that he tells us about his nature in the Bible and he came to Earth in the flesh that was predicted and proved his Authority by many well documented, detailed signs and wonders (Including raising himself and others from the dead)
There is that life arising from dead matter thing again!!

Other people believe that intelligent agent is much more vague but still real (to them at least). "The Cosmos" "Mother Nature" "The Powers that Be" "The Universal Being" "Transcendental Force" Etc Etc Etc..



I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE VERY FEW, IF ANY, "TRUE ATHEISTS"..

There may be a few.. But I am convinced that 99.9999% of it is a dog and pony show that is performed by artists / actors for varied personal reasons.. Everyone knows that God does indeed exist!.. They just dont want to admit it (To others or even to THEMSLEVES).

"Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a 'miracle' for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument."

(Dr. Chandra Wickramasinge,
  • mike the wiz likes this

#5 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,071 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 September 2017 - 12:46 PM

see that pond of sludge over there?
you mark my word, one of these days it will have amassed enough data that it will chart a course and then fly it to the moon and back.

you get the feeling that this might be impossible.

i agree with one of blitz's sources "all evolution is, is a working hypothesis" (paraphrased).

 

I'll just point out that the theory of evolution deals with life evolving into other types of life; not sludge turning into life.

 

At the most basic level evolution is descent with modification coupled with differential reproduction. A pile of sludge does none of those things.



#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 September 2017 - 01:13 PM

 

Goku: I'll just point out that the theory of evolution deals with life evolving into other types of life; not sludge turning into life.

 

At the most basic level evolution is descent with modification coupled with differential reproduction. A pile of sludge does none of those things.

 

And yet you believe in some form of natural selection at this stage of alleged evolution.

 

Goku, need I point out that logically I have proven that abiogenesis is only relevant to evolution theory, therefore to say the two aren't the same is really a vacuous statement.

 

Think about it - if biological evolution did NOT happen, then how could abiogenesis lead to a giraffe? So then, abiogenesis is only needed in order to explain the creation of an evolutionary concept. (a primordial common ancestor)

 

A primordial common ancestor is what evolution theory says we evolved from. If abiogenesis is not part of evolution theory then why doesn't abiogenesis describe for example, how a giraffe or tree somehow came from mud, at the beginning? (proving abiogenesis is based on evolution theory's assumptions)

 

Are you getting it yet? Abiogenesis describes how an evolutionary form (a non-existent "lifeform") arose, it doesn't tell us how real lifeforms arose. So then why does abiogenesis explain how an evolutionary first form arose?

 

Conclusion: Abiogenesis is just part of the story of evolution. That biological evolution explains the divergence of forms doesn't really alter that fact. We must take the whole story for what it is, altogether, because Darwin also proposed abiogenesis, and people then accepted his scenario, so they accepted an evolutionary version of the Genesis of life.

 

So I think what "What If" is saying, is that it seems to him highly absurd to imagine anything would come from sludge, and then later on become giraffes, bunnies and trees. Just on a human level if we are to picture it our minds, it seems a highly irrational scenario, for what reason would things have to construct themselves from the mud, when "they" don't exist, or don't have any constructor? Then when you picture in your mind trees and people and birds, how can you tell yourself they evolved? I think somewhere deep in every human heart, each person knows they lie to themselves, for those two scenarios when juxtaposed, depict two starkly and diametrically opposed things. The sophistication, beauty and miraculous viability of all lifeforms, just doesn't scream "random odge-bodge mindless evolution".

 

So when we juxtapose the creation to this scenario, our true inner-self shakes it's head, knowing this is farcical, because it just clearly didn't happen.

 

Goku - no amount of science-varnish is going to make this change, ultimately evolution theory, no matter how you argue it, is a farcical falsehood, a demonstration that man's wisdom is foolishness, that they perform all this science, have all these abilities, yet cannot see with all of those tools of modernity, what lies in front of them; A creation. "professing to be wise, they became fools"

 

God must surely LAUGH at man. When I watch documentaries on tv, people actually believing evolution, these PHDs talking drivel, I LAUGH.. how brilliant and awesome, that God has made sinners get it this wrong, it's actually hilarious really.


  • Blitzking likes this

#7 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 29 September 2017 - 01:17 PM

see that pond of sludge over there?
you mark my word, one of these days it will have amassed enough data that it will chart a course and then fly it to the moon and back.

you get the feeling that this might be impossible.

i agree with one of blitz's sources "all evolution is, is a working hypothesis" (paraphrased).

 
I'll just point out that the theory of evolution deals with life evolving into other types of life; not sludge turning into life.
 
At the most basic level evolution is descent with modification coupled with differential reproduction. A pile of sludge does none of those things.

yes, correct, the no god scenario.
then by definition this MUST include abiogenesis.
my OP stands.

#8 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 29 September 2017 - 02:04 PM

Conclusion: Abiogenesis is just part of the story of evolution. That biological evolution explains the divergence of forms doesn't really alter that fact. We must take the whole story for what it is, altogether, because Darwin also proposed abiogenesis, and people then accepted his scenario, so they accepted an evolutionary version of the Genesis of life.

Abiogenesis is part of the story of life, as is evolution. Technically chemistry and physics are part of it too. The individual parts of that story only depend on each other in the sense that they impose end conditions that have to be met. Whatever physics happened had to produce what we know exists in chemistry. Whatever chemistry happened had to produce what we know exists in biology. Abiogenesis had to produce something that could evolve. If our understanding of one of those origin steps is wrong, it doesn't automatically go all the way down the line. Being wrong about physics doesn't make us necessarily wrong about chemistry because the chemistry part is based on observations of matter that don't require knowing where it originally came from.

There isn't any particular reason to insist that they must always be taken together unless you're trying to tar one part of the story by attacking another.

Think of it this way: How much of your knowledge of how to operate a car depends on knowing the specifics of when, where, and how it was constructed? If you're wrong about how cars are built, does that mean your knowledge of how to drive one is necessarily compromised?

#9 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 September 2017 - 02:30 PM

 

 

Popoi:  If our understanding of one of those origin steps is wrong, it doesn't automatically go all the way down the line. 

 

But yet if abiogenesis is wrong and there never was any primordial form then obviously biological evolution is predicated on something that didn't happen. It seems rather obvious from all of the facts, both the intelligent design in the cell and all of the confirmation of biogenesis too, that abiogenesis is false.

 

 

 

Popoi: Whatever physics happened had to produce what we know exists in chemistry. Whatever chemistry happened had to produce what we know exists in biology

 

But that assumes physics does it, and chemistry does it. It's basically circular because what you're really saying is this; "well we know these lifeforms exist, therefore it must have somehow happened."

 

The problem with that type of reasoning is you can replace the cause with anything.

 

For example you can replace the cause with anything. For example a biological glue that doesn't now exist somehow was only attracting amino acids that were left handed. "here look, we have proteins, therefore however the glue done it, it must have achieved it because we have the proteins".

 

But what is the real cause of the proteins? Specified complexity is the condition required, we need to get a polymer, about 100 homochiral amino acids and the peptide bonds, the reason they all need to be left-handed is so they fold to create the protein which then has it's function. That's just a simple level of specified complexity, obviously the machines in the cell have more.

 

 

 

Popoi: There isn't any particular reason to insist that they must always be taken together unless you're trying to tar one part of the story by attacking another.

 

I just think they're the same thing - Darwin's story of how miraculous life somehow created itself. Couldn't I say that evolutionists want to separate the two so one isn't weakened by the other? They sure seem to insist on pointing out the difference every time abiogenesis comes up. At least you can acknowledge they're part of the same thing, ultimately. But some are bull-headed and would argue over it until rapture. One has to wonder why they are so defensive about a fairly simple matter.



#10 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 29 September 2017 - 02:33 PM

If our understanding of one of those origin steps is wrong, it doesn't automatically go all the way down the line.

i see you haven't actually done any circuit analysis.
i promise you, if you screw up one of your equations, all of the following results will be false.
one of my instructors was really keen about these types of tests.
he would give you a 3 stage circuit with about 50 or so unknowns.
the circuit would be easily solvable, but if you screwed up ANYWHERE, then all of the following results would be wrong, because each result depended on the previous answer.
been there, done that.
i failed half the test because i screwed up one of my answers.

#11 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 29 September 2017 - 04:01 PM

But yet if abiogenesis is wrong and there never was any primordial form then obviously biological evolution is predicated on something that didn't happen.

Evolution isn’t derived from a particular origin of life, it’s derived from observation of life.
 
 

But that assumes physics does it, and chemistry does it. It's basically circular because what you're really saying is this; "well we know these lifeforms exist, therefore it must have somehow happened."

Things that exist generally happened at some point, yes.

It doesn’t actually matter whether physics or something else did it. The point is that matter exists to study, therefore we can do chemistry. We can infer that matter didn’t exist then something happened and it did, but we don’t have to have the faintest idea what that thing was in order for chemistry to come to accurate conclusions. If we think we know what happened and it turns out we’re wrong, it doesn’t automatically mean we’re wrong about the chemistry.

 

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]For example you can replace the cause with anything. For example a biological glue that doesn't now exist somehow was only attracting amino acids that were left handed. "here look, we have proteins, therefore however the glue done it, it must have achieved it because we have the proteins".

‘“Abiogenesis” isn’t that specific. It’s the biology equivalent of “something happened”.

#12 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 29 September 2017 - 04:03 PM

If our understanding of one of those origin steps is wrong, it doesn't automatically go all the way down the line.

i see you haven't actually done any circuit analysis.
i promise you, if you screw up one of your equations, all of the following results will be false.
one of my instructors was really keen about these types of tests.
he would give you a 3 stage circuit with about 50 or so unknowns.
the circuit would be easily solvable, but if you screwed up ANYWHERE, then all of the following results would be wrong, because each result depended on the previous answer.
been there, done that.
i failed half the test because i screwed up one of my answers.

Did the origin of copper or silicon factor in to these assignments at any point?

#13 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 29 September 2017 - 04:30 PM

‘“Abiogenesis” isn’t that specific. It’s the biology equivalent of “something happened”.

you sir owe me one cup of coffee and a keyboard.

#14 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 29 September 2017 - 04:33 PM

If our understanding of one of those origin steps is wrong, it doesn't automatically go all the way down the line.

i see you haven't actually done any circuit analysis.
i promise you, if you screw up one of your equations, all of the following results will be false.
one of my instructors was really keen about these types of tests.
he would give you a 3 stage circuit with about 50 or so unknowns.
the circuit would be easily solvable, but if you screwed up ANYWHERE, then all of the following results would be wrong, because each result depended on the previous answer.
been there, done that.
i failed half the test because i screwed up one of my answers.

Did the origin of copper or silicon factor in to these assignments at any point?

upon thinking about this question, i find it illogical that there is anything at all.
i have no idea how everything can arise without "starting from" something else.

#15 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,071 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 September 2017 - 05:50 PM

yes, correct, the no god scenario.

then by definition this MUST include abiogenesis.
my OP stands.

 

Your thread is "evolution says sludge turned into astronauts" (paraphrased). While you omitted many key intermediary steps, this is part of the overall story historical science has given us. My point was simply that the purview of evolutionary theory does not extend to sludge in a pond. This has nothing to do with God; it has to do with the purview of explanation each scientific theory/hypothesis/field has.
 



#16 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 29 September 2017 - 06:11 PM

yes, correct, the no god scenario.
then by definition this MUST include abiogenesis.
my OP stands.

 
Your thread is "evolution says sludge turned into astronauts" (paraphrased). While you omitted many key intermediary steps, this is part of the overall story historical science has given us. My point was simply that the purview of evolutionary theory does not extend to sludge in a pond. This has nothing to do with God; it has to do with the purview of explanation each scientific theory/hypothesis/field has.

we all had to come from somewhere goku.
i've recently uncovered evidence (thanks blitz) that seems to say abiogenesis is impossible.
not might or could be, but is.

chew on that.

#17 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,071 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 September 2017 - 07:24 PM

we all had to come from somewhere goku.

i've recently uncovered evidence (thanks blitz) that seems to say abiogenesis is impossible.
not might or could be, but is.

chew on that.

 

What is this evidence?
 



#18 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,071 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 September 2017 - 07:57 PM

And yet you believe in some form of natural selection at this stage of alleged evolution.

 

There may have been some kind of 'natural selection' of sorts. For example the chirality of amino acids forming chains may have favored 'left handedness' due to a combination of things like small preferences for handedness in various chemical/physical reactions being magnified, and how amino acid chains work better when the chirality is the same.

 

Or the number of lipids present in a primitive cell membrane partially controls the membrane's permeability, and the permeability of such membranes was certainly an important element in keeping and retaining various molecules from its environment.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but the flippant way in which the OP was written indicates to me that this kind of stuff was not being alluded to; a bunch of sludge in a pond in which nothing chemically important or interesting would happen.

 

Goku, need I point out that logically I have proven that abiogenesis is only relevant to evolution theory, therefore to say the two aren't the same is really a vacuous statement.

 

'What If' stated that evolution says we went from non-life to astronauts, and all I did was point out that the theory of biological evolution can only start once there is life (or something close to it) to evolve. Considering the level of pedantry exhibited by various members of the forum this seems like a rather minor pedantic moment.

 

Think about it - if biological evolution did NOT happen, then how could abiogenesis lead to a giraffe? So then, abiogenesis is only needed in order to explain the creation of an evolutionary concept. (a primordial common ancestor)

 

By having the giraffe be the first lifeform in a series of abiogenesis processes?

 

That doesn't work, scientifically, because science doesn't propose that the giraffe was anywhere close to the first life.

 

This is kind of how science progresses; we trace back the evolutionary tree to the first life which would be a (relatively) simple singe celled organism, and then we ask the next logical step of where this first life came from. So of course any scientific investigation into abiogenesis is going to start with the knowledge already gained through biology. IOW science is cumulative.

 

A primordial common ancestor is what evolution theory says we evolved from. If abiogenesis is not part of evolution theory then why doesn't abiogenesis describe for example, how a giraffe or tree somehow came from mud, at the beginning? (proving abiogenesis is based on evolution theory's assumptions)

 

Are you getting it yet? Abiogenesis describes how an evolutionary form (a non-existent "lifeform") arose, it doesn't tell us how real lifeforms arose. So then why does abiogenesis explain how an evolutionary first form arose?

 

Conclusion: Abiogenesis is just part of the story of evolution. That biological evolution explains the divergence of forms doesn't really alter that fact. We must take the whole story for what it is, altogether, because Darwin also proposed abiogenesis, and people then accepted his scenario, so they accepted an evolutionary version of the Genesis of life.

 

Because science is cumulative, and all of science is investigating the same world/universe/reality (as far as we can tell). That said, each theory has a purview of explanation, and the origin of life is beyond the purview of evolutionary theory.

 

Popoi gave a good analogy about driving cars versus how cars are built. Of course they are related; the two should be concordant when you are talking about the same car just as evolution and abiogenesis should be concordant with one another. At the same time being able to drive properly and knowing how to build a car are two separate skill sets; evolution and abiogenesis require two different theories.

 

So I think what "What If" is saying, is that it seems to him highly absurd to imagine anything would come from sludge, and then later on become giraffes, bunnies and trees. Just on a human level if we are to picture it our minds, it seems a highly irrational scenario, for what reason would things have to construct themselves from the mud, when "they" don't exist, or don't have any constructor? Then when you picture in your mind trees and people and birds, how can you tell yourself they evolved? I think somewhere deep in every human heart, each person knows they lie to themselves, for those two scenarios when juxtaposed, depict two starkly and diametrically opposed things. The sophistication, beauty and miraculous viability of all lifeforms, just doesn't scream "random odge-bodge mindless evolution".

 

So when we juxtapose the creation to this scenario, our true inner-self shakes it's head, knowing this is farcical, because it just clearly didn't happen.

 

Goku - no amount of science-varnish is going to make this change, ultimately evolution theory, no matter how you argue it, is a farcical falsehood, a demonstration that man's wisdom is foolishness, that they perform all this science, have all these abilities, yet cannot see with all of those tools of modernity, what lies in front of them; A creation. "professing to be wise, they became fools"

 

God must surely LAUGH at man. When I watch documentaries on tv, people actually believing evolution, these PHDs talking drivel, I LAUGH.. how brilliant and awesome, that God has made sinners get it this wrong, it's actually hilarious really.

 

 

Of course the way What If worded the OP was to make it sound absurd; that was the clear point of the epithet and the flippant tone.

 

While there are random components to evolution, and probably in abiogenesis too, the process as a whole is non-random. Something creationists never seem to fully grasp.

 

Lots of things in science sound absurd. A piece of wood is mostly empty space, or that we are zipping thousands of miles an hour around the Sun. We need to regularly wash our hands so creatures so tiny you can't see them won't give you a disease. Or how about whether a single particle of light behaves like a particle or a wave depends on whether or not we observe it; how a single particle can behave like a wave and interfere with itself is also absurd IMHO.

 

My point is that just saying evolution is absurd, or to frame it in such a way as to make it sound absurd, is not really convincing to me nor any evolutionist here. I don't think I am being too presumptuous here in speaking for evolutionists when I say that the details, as best as we can understand, indicate that evolution is real no matter how one spins them to sound absurd.

 

Since you brought up God and Genesis, I'll end by noting that a literal reading of Genesis says that a magic being used an incantation spell to have the earth bring forth a giraffe.



#19 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 29 September 2017 - 10:59 PM

we all had to come from somewhere goku.
i've recently uncovered evidence (thanks blitz) that seems to say abiogenesis is impossible.
not might or could be, but is.

chew on that.

 
What is this evidence?

post 345 page 18 of the missing transitional thread.
the source is behind a paywall, and i'll be purchasing it in a few days.
the post:

A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of infinite escape clauses. I believe we developed this practice to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of self-reproducing state is zero."

(Sidney W. Fox, "The Origins of Pre-Biological Systems)

well, i'm interested.
searching on the source:
The selection first offers information on random polymers as a matrix for chemical evolution, the folly of probability, and molecular matrices for living systems.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9781483228617

hmmm . . .
is this the proof that abiogenesis is impossible?


evolution says . . .
. . . uh oh.

#20 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 30 September 2017 - 12:00 AM

There may have been some kind of 'natural selection' of sorts. For example the chirality of amino acids forming chains may have favored 'left handedness' due to a combination of things like small preferences for handedness in various chemical/physical reactions being magnified, and how amino acid chains work better when the chirality is the same.
 
Or the number of lipids present in a primitive cell membrane partially controls the membrane's permeability, and the permeability of such membranes was certainly an important element in keeping and retaining various molecules from its environment.
 
Maybe I'm wrong, but the flippant way in which the OP was written indicates to me that this kind of stuff was not being alluded to; a bunch of sludge in a pond in which nothing chemically important or interesting would happen.

why on earth would you believe "nothing chemically important" would happen in a pond of sludge?
would it help if i said instead "under optimal favorable conditions starting with already purified ingredients".
it isn't a stretch for me to assume science has already tried that route.

Of course the way What If worded the OP was to make it sound absurd; that was the clear point of the epithet and the flippant tone.

wait a minute.
isn't that what MUST happen?
evolution REQUIRES it.
and i'll agree, it DOES sound absurd.
it's the most absurd thing i've ever heard, other than the god concept.
so, if abiogenesis is impossible then we are faced with the irrational.
 

My point is that just saying evolution is absurd, or to frame it in such a way as to make it sound absurd, is not really convincing to me nor any evolutionist here.

it wasn't meant to convince you of anything except it's absurdity.
and the ONLY reason you don't want to entertain that thought is, the alternative is even more absurd.
kiss me, and let's dance.
yeah, it's making me crazy.

I don't think I am being too presumptuous here in speaking for evolutionists when I say that the details, as best as we can understand, indicate that evolution is real no matter how one spins them to sound absurd.

i'll agree, evolution in some form is a reality, but it isn't darwinian.
the question of how it all started is one giant question mark.
and yes, that pond of sludge HAD to amass data (information) to become the first cell.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users