Actually, no it wouldnt, and this is really easy to demonstrate. Lets say, i have 5 dice, and i place them in a cup, randomly shake them around, and roll them onto a wooden table. Now, from there, lets say we recorded the exact location of the dice on the table, the number that was facing up, even the angle of the dice.
Okay, here you are attempting to equate the statistical variances of something (in this case dice) as an attribute for (or supporting) Abiogenesis (atheists usually attempt to disprove this concept. So I thank you for using it). And if you want to go that route, we can, and further expound on it to prove AbiogenesisÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ improbability of happening in the first place (see Sir Fredric Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe). And from that point you will get yourself in a statistical bind as well as logical, rational and scientific conundrum.
What are the requirements, to repeat such a feat, with each dice in its exact same location, angle, and face? Quite difficult, wouldnt you say? You would have to calculate and replicate the exact speed of the hand that tossed the dice, the precise release time, etc. But, its not impossible, as clearly it was done once before.
This further makes your hopes for Abiogenesis a statistical impossibility in the first place. So thanks for that.
The fact that something occurred befoStatre, doesnt mean it will never occur again, but unless the specific requirements are duplicated, you will not likely to see it occur again. Maybe you are aware of a proto-earth condition that exists on this planet right now, but i sure dont.
you are assuming a Ã¢â‚¬Å“proto-EarthÃ¢â‚¬Â condition, but that is nothing more than pure speculation at best. And I have no problem with your placing your faith statements here. Second,
Ã¢â‚¬Å“IFÃ¢â‚¬Â abiogenesis even had the possibility to happen in the first place (which is Ã¢â‚¬Å“statisticallyÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“logicallyÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“rationallyÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“scientificallyÃ¢â‚¬Â impossible), then it DOES follow that it could happen again and again; because Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“IfÃ¢â‚¬Â the Ã¢â‚¬Å“ConditionsÃ¢â‚¬Â for abiogenesis to happen were even possible, then it DOES follow that it could happen again and again!
Ive managed to read some of the other posts, which seems to me, to indicate that your beef with speciation isnt that it hasnt occurred at all, but rather the degree to which it occurs. Are what the others saying regarding your beliefs about speciation, true?
No, you are incorrect. My beef with the Ã¢â‚¬Å“atheistic evolutionaryÃ¢â‚¬Â definition of speciation, is that it is so fluid, so as to prove evolution in the first place. In other words, atheistic evolutionists use a flexible definition to support their beliefs in evolution.
And, further, none of this goes to the OP question:
1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via Ã¢â‚¬Å“naturalÃ¢â‚¬Â chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidencesÃ¢â‚¬Â for this is presupposed and contrived.
2- After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only Ã¢â‚¬Å“ManÃ¢â‚¬Â would have a historical record of achievement!
And you have really failed to adequately address any of it (as weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll see further below).
I am willing to bet that most of your examples has to do with one attribute in humans; Intelligence. In any case, i was simply providing a simple answer to your question. Let us continue with our discussion, shall we?
I am not making the argument that whales are different. Although, of course, i would disagree, i dont know if discussing the evidence of common ancestry would constitute as derailing this argument. I only used the word "Acheive" because you used it, but the crux of the problem doesnt lie in that word, but rather, in the intelligence of human beings.
Humans haven't "Acheived" their attribute of intelligence. The human brain wasnt different 2000 years ago, than it is now, and ancient thinkers like Aristotle, Hippocrates and Plato are brilliant, intelligent thinkers in their own right. We've been able to increase our knowledge, but we haven't necessarily become more, or less, intelligent than we were 3000, 4000 years ago. The attribute that humans hold, that is, intelligence, is the same as the attribute that whales hold, i.e. their size. Like the size of whales, this attribute in humans fluctuates, as you can have people who are great, brilliant thinkers, and you can have people who couldnt understand why fire is so hot. But there is no acheivement here.
And with that in mind, we, or atleast I, was talking about specific attributes that animals have, and not how they obtained those attributes.
As to your second point, not at all. Humans are, as most animals are, curious, and are proned to trying to understand the world around them. Its why we call it human nature, because it really is human nature. Humans are proned and bound to this, just like whales are bound to their own attributes, and could not decide to change if they could. Whether or not this is because a God placed this pre-programmed nature into us or not, doesnt change the fact that a human, especially if he wasnt taught by other humans regarding society, rules, and norms, will be proned to acting out their nature.
This, again, brings me back to the point i was making above. Everything that you listed there, all points to a single attribute of mankind, that is, intelligence. Just like the attribute of a cheetah is for it to run very fast, the attribute of humans is intelligence. There is no evidence to point to the fact that humans, 2000 years, or even 4000, 6000 years ago, had a brain that was so different than modern humans, that they were incapable of learning, for example, the atomic theory, if they were taught from birth the necessary language and knowledge.
I havent ignored that. Infact, i mentioned it, by pointing out that the attribute of human beings is intelligence. Although i wouldnt say that we've improved ALL the abilities of other creatures, id agree that we are getting closer and closer, yet in many ways, we are so far off. But the problem with that argument, is this. Much of our knowledge, our understand, our technologies, are based off of that of nature. I think Isaac Newton put it very aptly when he said "If i have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulder of giants". These creatures have done so much, and man has recognized this by mimicking them in many aspects. Its also why so many plants are the basis for many of the pharmaceutical breakthroughs.
And again, you stray from the points:
The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolvedÃ¢â‚¬Â animal achieving even ONE of the following;
An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured Ã¢â‚¬â€œ A heavier than air Ã¢â‚¬Å“craftÃ¢â‚¬Â that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea Ã¢â‚¬Å“craftÃ¢â‚¬Â that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling Ã¢â‚¬Å“craftÃ¢â‚¬Â that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile. Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.
Your dialogue further makes my point. You attempt to paint humans and animals with the same brush, but you cannot (or will not?) show any evidence of any other creature that has achieved even the minutest fraction of what man has done. All youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve really done is go on about how manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s intelligence is the difference. And to this I agree!!! But, it in no way refutes my points. All it really does is support what I maintain.
Further, you havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t supported any refutation that any of this is any different than it has always been. And for that I thank you!