Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
mike the wiz

My I.D Syllogism

Recommended Posts

On 5/18/2020 at 2:52 PM, mike the wiz said:

It's more of a total personal assurance. Perhaps it's not really the intellectual side of it to which I refer. I think the Lord puts creation right under our noses but it's only really when the spiritual blinkers come off and you come to know Him, does He fully reveal the obviousness of the fact of creation to the individual.

 

there are only 2 possible scenarios:

1. the god concept is valid

or

2. it isn't.

if 1 is true then something must explain the contradictions that arise.

the only thing i can think of in this regard is that the concept has been misinterpreted.

i've concluded that the concept is more than just a myth, there is definitely some truth behind it.

the number one reason i say that is the near universal nature of this concept.

there are many other reasons that i can't put my finger on.

dawkins would like you to believe that almost everyone is an atheist, but i've found that simply isn't the case.

the question of religion as a personal matter, especially here in the states, is nobodys business.

and most will most likely tell you that if asked.

i WILL make a prediction though:

you have 2  over the top genius chemists.

one a god believer, the other atheist.

the god believer will solve abiogenesis before the atheist.

do i believe that?

yes, i do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, what if said:

there are only 2 possible scenarios:

1. the god concept is valid

or

2. it isn't.

The problem is we have both the computer and the lifeforms. Both have information, specified complexity, function, goals, purpose, contingency planning.

The only real difference is that the lifeforms design has far more intelligence.

Logic shows we can infer two things.

1. We have two designs as they are identified as designed having all of the features of design.

2. The designer of lifeforms has to be smarter than us because even after applying thousands of the most intelligent human minds we don't approach the designer's mind.

So in terms of what can be deduced, God not being there to my mind is only a technical possibility, it isn't really a practical possibility. I guess everything is technically possible, it's technically possible humans trained monkeys to build the pyramids but does that give me any reason to believe it chimes with reality?

34 minutes ago, what if said:

you have 2  over the top genius chemists.

one a god believer, the other atheist.

the god believer will solve abiogenesis before the atheist.

do i believe that?

yes, i do.

But the term, "problem" is a loaded term.

If I go with logic four things don't exist that I have no reason to believe ever did.

1. A primordial world.

2. A primordial swamp

3. An abiogenesis.

4. A primordial form.

As far as I can see these things are science fiction, especially considering all the experiments they have done to try and replicate/understand Abiogenesis. But how can you replicate/understand something that never existed?

Then with evolution you have more things that never existed;

1. The forms that give rise to the animal phyla in the Cambrian.

2. The forms that turned into the later flora and fauna.

Say what you like but that's an awful lot of FAITH AND BELIEF in materialistic, natural processes.

On the other hand with design nothing is missing and all of the facts needed are present, the only thing we don't see is the designer actually create the animals. 

Conclusion; It's a ho, ho don't you know Horatio horn that I can blow, blow, don't you know!:rotfl3:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mike the wiz said:

If I go with logic four things don't exist that I have no reason to believe ever did.

1. A primordial world.

2. A primordial swamp

3. An abiogenesis.

4. A primordial form.

As far as I can see these things are science fiction, especially considering all the experiments they have done . . .

i disagree.

we have every reason to believe they did exist.

the real question is "did life walk out of it?"

humanity has tried many approaches to those ends and arrived at the conclusion that it would be a seeming miracle if it did.

every hypothesis ever made in regard to abiogenesis has failed.

the next question becomes "why has it failed"?

i believe the answer to that question is the cell has information content that simply can't be resolved by the "no intelligence" scenario.

once you arrive at that conclusion you're left in limbo trying to understand what the nature of this "unexplained intelligence" is.

i've given this some thought and the best answer i have is intelligence exists in the timeline,  NOT in what we call the universe.

this would give intelligence the appearance of existing outside of nature, which is apparently the case.

this also implies time is eternal and the universe is not.

i don't know mike, the above is conjecture on my part.

i'm trying to make sense of something i don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, what if said:

every hypothesis ever made in regard to abiogenesis has failed.

the next question becomes "why has it failed"?

There's only one left; because abiogenesis doesn't exist and never did, just like the experimental science has shown over and over again. The answer that fits, indeed the only answer that ever fitted is that it has failed because it is false, and was never anywhere near the ball park of, "true". It's one big codswallopal fantasy on steroids Darwin made up. In his day he thought a protein could emerge from a warm pond, simply a story he invented believing cells simple, but now we know evolution is too simple for the design that exists in the cell.

His Victorian philosophy belongs as an antique on the shelf of toads no more sophisticated than victorian aged technology.

1 hour ago, what if said:

i believe the answer to that question is the cell has information content that simply can't be resolved by the "no intelligence" scenario.

once you arrive at that conclusion you're left in limbo trying to understand what the nature of this "unexplained intelligence" is.

i've given this some thought and the best answer i have is intelligence exists in the timeline,  NOT in what we call the universe.

this would give intelligence the appearance of existing outside of nature, which is apparently the case.

this also implies time is eternal and the universe is not.

i don't know mike, the above is conjecture on my part.

i'm trying to make sense of something i don't understand.

Well you're most of the way there.

Try and see it from my perspective as a Christian creationists, read what you have said here again, and imagine being a creationist because what you have just basically said is that everything points to God created life and the universe only you stop short of saying it's God. 

But for us, the facts all pointing to the Lord is all we really need. I guess though the difference is for a Christian it's only half intellectual but for you you have to rely on your own human reason and that isn't enough to get you there. 

There will always be room for faith of course, otherwise I would be saying, "I have 100% proof of God", which I don't. 

One other thing that may help you in your own search is looking at the earth itself. Really out of billions of species we are the only one that is a living soul, a persona. We all innately know there's something different about humans. Doesn't that just so happen to fit with being made in God's image.

After all remember that computer I mentioned with all the designer features? How is it only humans can make something with all the designer features a lifeform has?

Wouldn't you expect that from the only creature made in God's image? That we are the ones able to mimic what God can do in our smaller capacity?

It's TOO NEAT. It all fits, every piece. If the evolution scenario were true why wouldn't there be 476 other species of animal that could do what we can do? After all how many species of primate can do what apes can do? Hundreds. Monkeys can basically match an ape in all it does, and how many animals are on the level of a cat or a bear? Hundreds if not thousands, but not one is on the level of a human being. 

Abiogenesis is redundant, you have exhausted all possibilities my lad, the only remaining one is it's falsification but if you never allow anything to reasonably falsify it you have to ask yourself, "why won't I allow it be false when it reasonably is? this stuff can't just come together for designer reasons!"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

His Victorian philosophy belongs as an antique on the shelf of toads no more sophisticated than victorian aged technology.

 

it might be hard for some to believe, but koonin basically said the same thing in regards to the modern synthesis.

instead of "as an antique on the shelf of toads" he used the word museum.

woese said something similar, calling them outdated 19th century concepts.

Quote

Abiogenesis is redundant, you have exhausted all possibilities my lad, the only remaining one is it's falsification but if you never allow anything to reasonably falsify it you have to ask yourself, "why won't I allow it be false when it reasonably is? this stuff can't just come together for designer reasons!"

unfortunately a scientist doesn't have that luxury mike.

a scientist doesn't have double standards like that.

i do however feel that there is indeed proof of intelligence as a force of nature.

there are certain experiments where the results depend on whether an observer is present.

an observer must interpret the results and must posses intelligence to do so.

the placebo effect.

this effect is a direct link between your mind and your genetic makeup.

there is no known law of physics that accounts for that.

i believe those 2 examples is proof that intelligence is indeed a real force of nature.

as you can see, iv'e spent some time thinking about this stuff but can't quite put it all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, what if said:

unfortunately a scientist doesn't have that luxury mike.

a scientist doesn't have double standards like that.

Double standards?

No you misunderstand. If there is evidence something is reasonably false and no evidence it is true, realistically we can falsify the notion. Yes, you can forever go with the technicality that we, "don't surely, absolutely know", but we don't surely, absolutely know that monkeys trained by men, built the pyramids. We don't absolutely surely know that there isn't a levitating mashed potato behind a rock somewhere in this universe.

I am asking the intellectual question; "does that technicality really withhold falsification reasonably speaking? Does that technicality actually give me any reason to believe something reasonably false may be true?"

I don't think it does. There is no way you could get something like a cell and there is no reason in nature for certain things to happen. (law of non-contradiction).

Is it a matter of probability if I look on a trillion planets for where rock may have built a cathedral? No, because we innately know even if there are big numbers the real reason why some things don't happen is because they just contradict the nature of reality.

Is there somewhere a chassis randomly built from naturally occurring metal with one thousand threaded holes all 4 X 20mm machined correctly for the bolts that are also fitted?

Is that really a matter of numbers, would you really say, "given enough worlds and enough time it may happen".

I don't think it is a matter of probability, I think it's simply that some things don't happen. As surely as Pamela Anderson will never knock on my door demanding to jump my bones the most intelligently designed things to ever exist will not arise because a pond farted. 

:gotcha: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

Double standards?

No you misunderstand. If there is evidence something is reasonably false and no evidence it is true, realistically we can falsify the notion. Yes, you can forever go with the technicality that we, "don't surely, absolutely know", but we don't surely, absolutely know that monkeys trained by men, built the pyramids. We don't absolutely surely know that there isn't a levitating mashed potato behind a rock somewhere in this universe.

I am asking the intellectual question; "does that technicality really withhold falsification reasonably speaking? Does that technicality actually give me any reason to believe something reasonably false may be true?"

I don't think it does. There is no way you could get something like a cell and there is no reason in nature for certain things to happen. (law of non-contradiction).

Is it a matter of probability if I look on a trillion planets for where rock may have built a cathedral? No, because we innately know even if there are big numbers the real reason why some things don't happen is because they just contradict the nature of reality.

Is there somewhere a chassis randomly built from naturally occurring metal with one thousand threaded holes all 4 X 20mm machined correctly for the bolts that are also fitted?

Is that really a matter of numbers, would you really say, "given enough worlds and enough time it may happen".

I don't think it is a matter of probability, I think it's simply that some things don't happen. As surely as Pamela Anderson will never knock on my door demanding to jump my bones the most intelligently designed things to ever exist will not arise because a pond farted. 

:gotcha: 

i'm sorry but it's you that misunderstands.

when science runs into an intractable problem like abiogenesis it cannot simply throw up its hands and say god did it.

and if you are honest you wouldn't want scientists that threw up their hands and say god did it without any explanation of its nature.

you must remember that science is a method of discovery.

look around you mike, what do you see?

floors, walls, cellphones, laptops, desktops, monitors, televisions, radios, cars, trucks, tanks, machine guns, wires, microwave ovens.

a scientist can tell you EXACTLY how any one of those came into existence.

then we have the mysterious.

stonehenge, the pyramids, the nazca lines.

does anyone really say "god did it" in relation to those things?

people try to find a reasonable, rational explanation for them.

the same applies to abiogenesis.

and science is basically keeping people in the dark in this area.

science has utterly failed at its attempt at a solution but hasn't informed us as to WHY it has failed.

this sort of thing is simply wrong.

i do know this much, science has already concluded that life did not arrive here in a mechanistic stepwise fashion.

in other words they have ruled out the gradual accumulation of genetic material.

 

edit:

There is good reason to think that the emergence of life on the Earth did not just involve a long string of random chemical events that fortuitously led to a simple living system. If life had emerged in such an arbitrary way, then the mechanistic question of abiogenesis would be fundamentally without explanation—a stupendously improbable chemical outcome whose likelihood of repetition would be virtually zero. However, the general view, now strongly supported by recent studies in systems chemistry, is that the process of abiogenesis was governed by underlying physico-chemical principles, and the central goal of OOL studies should therefore be to delineate those principles.

-The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know

 

question: what exactly is  physico-chemical principles?

i found this:

Physicochemical Properties and Environmental Fate - A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives - NCBI Bookshelf

 

from the above it seems like they are referring to the physical properties of atoms and molecules.

i don't mean to be trite, but isn't that what you are supposed to do?

i mean everyone that has taken a chemistry class in high school knows this.

so essentially science has switched from "let's follow the rules and laws of chemistry" to "let's follow the rules and laws of chemistry".

is there some kind of double speak going on here or am i seeing things?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, what if said:

i'm sorry but it's you that misunderstands.

when science runs into an intractable problem like abiogenesis it cannot simply throw up its hands and say god did it.

and if you are honest you wouldn't want scientists that threw up their hands and say god did it without any explanation of its nature.

you must remember that science is a method of discovery.

look around you mike, what do you see?

floors, walls, cellphones, laptops, desktops, monitors, televisions, radios, cars, trucks, tanks, machine guns, wires, microwave ovens.

a scientist can tell you EXACTLY how any one of those came into existence

Yes but you've brought, "science" into it to allude to a false dichotomy that you stand for science and I don't. Ironically it is actually proper science that has shown abiogenesis cannot be anything other than false. There are chicken and egg scenarios in the cell that cannot be reduced. There is no, "science" to which you can appeal, but instead you appeal to the future fallacy and call the lack of any facts, "science" by saying, "science cannot do that mike!"

Do what? Tell us that there is no science to abiogenesis so instead we should wait for the, "problem" to be solved?

No, I think I will go with what the science facts actually show;

1. Biogenesis. 2. As much evidence primordial form exist as there is for spaghetti monsters. 3. No evidence there was any primordial swamp. 4. The blatant intelligent design proven in organisms by the science of anatomy, biology and chemistry. 

THAT is the science for all those things can be scientifically shown, and abiogenesis can't, so just declaring your side "science", when you have no science, seems to me like your side is simply believing there is science to something there isn't.

That's how DUMB scientists are these days, that they actually represent the belief position AGAINST the scientific facts.

And my argument was not to look at the absence of evidence for abiogenesis then declare, "God did it", that would be to put your own SPIN on it, nor did I request scientists use that argument.

Our arguments for why God did do it are based on actual evidence from intelligent design, the evidence we know is proven to be expected from designers, so we don't argue from any gap. 

So the actual conclusion you were looking for was, "NOT abiogenesis". Meaning abiogenesis is false. THAT is my argument, I did not say I would infer from that absence, "God did it", I would infer abiogenesis is false. My arguments for why God did do it are not provable but would be evidence-based arguments from design.

21 hours ago, what if said:

then we have the mysterious.

stonehenge, the pyramids, the nazca lines.

does anyone really say "god did it" in relation to those things?

people try to find a reasonable, rational explanation for them.

the same applies to abiogenesis.

No but we can infer intelligent designers. The same with life, we can infer a designer.

To make my case that God is the designer is obviously a separate argument but in informal discussions (which is what our discussion has pretty much been), obviously I will mention God. 

21 hours ago, what if said:

the same applies to abiogenesis.

and science is basically keeping people in the dark in this area.

science has utterly failed at its attempt at a solution but hasn't informed us as to WHY it has failed

You use the words, "solution" and "problem" in regards to abiogenesis, like science has failed to uncover something. But if science has failed to uncover it, I am afraid "it" never existed because science has failed to uncover it.

An absence of reasoning doesn't solve riddles, "What If", but what it can do is send you going around in circles.

Those terms are LOADED epithets. There cannot be a "solution" to a "problem" which does not exist. 

For example I could replace the word, "abiogenesis" in your posts, with, "mechanical spaghetti monsters" and declare that, "science has failed to solve the problem of spaghetti monsters, it is science's fault as to why it can't solve the problem for us and allow us to finally shed light on their existence."

THAT'S LITERALLY ALL YOU HAVE; A belief there is a thing called, "abiogenesis". 

21 hours ago, what if said:

There is good reason to think that the emergence of life on the Earth did not just involve a long string of random chemical events that fortuitously led to a simple living system

There is good reason to think that the emergence of spaghetti monsters did not just involve an automatic arrival on the scene but a gradual emergence from a primordial setting.

See, anyone can produce a "science-like" assertion.

There was no, "emergence" of life on earth according to evolution and you have to believe evolution is true in order to grant the assumption.

CONCLUSION: All you are doing is using certain loaded words. You basically TREAT these things as true by referring to them as though they are.

Like with uncle Bob. Of course I have no uncle Bob but if I just talk like he exists that might fool stupid people into believing he does. 

Do you think you'll fool me? 

Conclusion: You still partake of this obtuse thinking that you can come to a creationist discussion forum and talk like we also take the evolutionary worldview for granted. You forget we take NONE OF IT as anything more than a story by atheists. Saying things to me like this assertion about the "emergence" of life is almost spoken as though you think you will get it past me. 

Seriously?

Sorry friend but it's all philosophical evolutionary gibberish to me because you've been suckered in.(evolspeak is a popular name for it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

Our arguments for why God did do it are based on actual evidence from intelligent design, the evidence we know is proven to be expected from designers, so we don't argue from any gap.

people aren't stupid, they can easily see the contradictions that an existing god raises

the only conclusion in this regard is that the god concept has been misinterpreted.

Quote

CONCLUSION: All you are doing is using certain loaded words. You basically TREAT these things as true by referring to them as though they are.

that's right.

atoms and chemicals follow rules and laws, and no amount of voodoo, whodu, rain dances, or praying to the gods will make them do otherwise.

the above brings up an interesting dilemma.

how on earth can the placebo effect alter your genetic makeup?

this is something that isn't assumed or conjectured, it's been proven over and over and over.

something explains that mike, something tangible, and we will NOT find it by assuming a god.

Quote

Sorry friend but it's all philosophical evolutionary gibberish to me because you've been suckered in.(evolspeak is a popular name for it)

you say toe-may-toe, i say toe-ma-toe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2020 at 12:37 PM, mike the wiz said:

I will try and get back to Popoi and Wibble. I will make a start here, there is a lot to deal with, sorry if I don't address everything. I know Perpetual Student seems to HATE the fact I use a lot of words but it is very difficult to explain things which aren't always generally understood by people, if they haven't looked into those things. And be honest, evolutionists generally don't look at the models or explanations we put forward, to any depth.

Quote

 

No, there are specific reasons, some people, (but perhaps only the intelligent ones) sometimes have a term for a, "lot of words", and that term is an; "explanation".

Some things need explaining. Especially if you need to explain them for the other person to understand properly. I provided lots of support for my words too, showing for example that a jellyfish used to only be found in the Permian but is now found in the Cambrian.

 

Hi Mike,

Two times you mention me, and twice you misrepresent my objections to your writings. I don't object you using " a lot of words". What object  -- and mention clearly is that you write very long texts to hide the fact that you have no argument. You use your words as a smoke screen, not for clarification.

Iw rite so clearly in my rebuttal to you.

Quote

You produce a lot of words, but that's your usual smoke screen. If you had found such out of place fossil you would show. 

The fact that you misrepresent my position as just "hating a lot of words" is a non truth. It's even spelled out in the post you quote.

And you do that often, creating smoke screens:

You did this here, for example

https://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6917-the-bible-predicts/&do=findComment&comment=150730

or here

https://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6917-the-bible-predicts/&do=findComment&comment=150723

or here

https://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6890-the-pendleton-curve/&do=findComment&comment=147528

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2020 at 1:12 PM, mike the wiz said:

Perpetual Student, I shall now give a, "lot of words" but it should be OBVIOUS those words have explanatory power. That is their purpose, to let you know WHY creationists don't need to provide a bunny in the Cambrian.

oh? OK, i'm holding my breath...

Quote

 

Now if you say, "well I don't agree, I think this proves evolution for me", FINE - I am not forcing you to agree, but the purpose of the explanation is to let you know why creationists take the creationist position on this issue. The purpose isn't to BAMBOOZLE you with a lot of words, but to try (and oh boy do I try) to get you guys to understand things properly.

If Piasan and Goku can understand it, then why can't you guys understand it?

Answer: Because they are actually reading my explanation, and even if they don't agree with it, they can at least understand my position, just as I have taken the time to fully understand their position, to fully understand evolution so that I don't misrepresent their position.

 

Oh, they read what you write and I don't? How is then going through your writings, phrase by phrase, sometimes one word at a time not reading? Let's wait and see...

 

Quote

 

I realise this is a more sophisticated level of debate of course, but it is one that may propel you out of the low standard of debate you may seemingly be used to, where people just assert things without providing any provable words of explanation of proper discourse.

Ere long I must explain it.

So then in this specialised and insightful way we may proceed forth with great irkblasting trumpets across the oceans of knowledge, ho, ho, don't you know, and aim for that better position of excellence we fleetingly see in sportsmen. One sportsman of par excellence whom finished in the maillot jaune, a career of excellence, was the recently retired Martin Fourcade. When you picture me in debate, that is a vision you must possess, of a keen marksman aiming for all targets, and succeeding to excellence. For that is my aim, dear Sir, and I only do this thing for your very own personal pleasure, ho, ho, don't you know. 

Verily I say unto you, it is with great discombobulated misgivings that you pipe these dire misgivings of mikey doom upon my person here so affronted, etcetera etcetera, before I have even warmed up my writing pen.

Thus this rendering will represent the first course of my explanation of the creationist position ere long bunnies will hop forth, but not from Cambrian soups I tell thee!!

So then what have you learnt so far from my post?

 

That Martin Fourcade waas a biathlete, which is not so much

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fourcade

I hope the second part will be more informative...

 

Quote

Shall I begin my explanation?

So you haven't stated yet? How disappointing. 

Quote

Perhaps we shall let you digest the first course,

That wasn't much.

Quote

 

before uttering so much as one diabolical attempt of rebuttal. For this is the great conflation of our age my dear recipients. That conflation is, that of the rebuttal being mixed with the response.

RESPONSE or REBUTTAL?

In my time, I see that 98% of evolutionists CONFLATE their response with a rebuttal. They believe if they have responded, then they have rebutted. This is the great pseudo-intellectualism of our age, that nowadays intellectually meritorious and cogent, germane babblings are not regarded according to acumen but according to consensus. Therefore if enough people AGREE that five and five being nine is, "close enough to the target", then apparently they then regard that as being intellectually meritorious.

This great indolence of the average soul, represents a ZERO content critical regime, where logic is basically understood to be a term from Star Trek. :rolleyes:

This is the beginning of my utterings dear Sir. Shall I begin the explanation for the bunny in the Cambrian now or should I drop you more pearls my boy? :rotfl3:

Mischief complete. (and let's face it you could lighten up a bit.) ;) 

 

Well done. Congratulations.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2020 at 1:59 AM, Blitzking said:

 

He's responded publicly to that question.

Ah yes.. Here is part of his "public reaponse"

"In the of "evidence for evolution," meant evolution in the standard, conventional sense. There are observations of allele frequency changes in populations (Darwin's finches, for example),"

LOL.    Darwin's finches are his "evidence for evolution"????  Are you KIDDING ME?? Enoch has NOTHING on THIS madman....

Now you see why he finished with THIS....

"you can always denounce me as a debate dodger."

Yes indeed... I already did so.. He didnt disappoint. 

Todd Wood said (and is quoted in your post) "for example". There are many more example than only d-Darwin's finches. The finches are just an easy, well known example out of many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Perpetual_student said:

Todd Wood said (and is quoted in your post) "for example". There are many more example than only d-Darwin's finches. The finches are just an easy, well known example out of many.

ANYONE who gives Finches Beaks as an example of "Evolution" isnt talking about Microbe to Microbiologist evolution.. They are talking about ADAPTATION  and then using the duplicitous word "evolution" instead as a bait and switch parlor trick..  The ability to ADAPT or VARY is ALREADY built into the DNA genome of each and every created kind..

"There are many more example than only d-Darwin's finches."

Examples of WHAT specifically..?  If you have any examples of scientific evidence to support the crazy hypothesis that a microbe slowly evolved into all flora and fauna.(TOE) Here is the post I started over a year ago with no one providing any so far!!

I'm glad you have decided to engage me on the subject, I hope you will continue to do so..  Regards JT 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Perpetual_student said:

Todd Wood said (and is quoted in your post) "for example". There are many more example than only d-Darwin's finches. The finches are just an easy, well known example out of many.

43 minutes ago, Blitzking said:

ANYONE who gives Finches Beaks as an example of "Evolution" isnt talking about Microbe to Microbiologist evolution.. They are talking about ADAPTATION  and then using the duplicitous word "evolution" instead as a bait and switch parlor trick..  The ability to ADAPT or VARY is ALREADY built into the DNA genome of each and every created kind.. I'm glad you have decided to engage me on the subject, I hope you will continue to do so..  Regards JT 

Blitzking is correct on this "Adaptation", as you must know Perpetual_student..

(As i have mentioned before) It's the EXACT same as to WHY we do not have babies born with callouses upon their newborn hands from being birthed from parents whom were woodworkers/carpenters/laborers etc...

As the 'Information' is ALREADY encoded into the D.N.A. to 'Build' callouses on the skin in areas most needed as we age....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hate to disagree with blitz and killur but once the eukaryote cell (a microbe) arrived on the scene, then the microbe to man scenario becomes a definite reality.

this however doesn't come close to explaining how the cell arrived here.

the matter of HOW this was achieved is unknown, science has no explanation for it and is at a total loss at how it was achieved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, what if said:

i hate to disagree with blitz and killur but once the eukaryote cell (a microbe) arrived on the scene, then the microbe to man scenario becomes a definite reality.

this however doesn't come close to explaining how the cell arrived here.

the matter of HOW this was achieved is unknown, science has no explanation for it and is at a total loss at how it was achieved

"i hate to disagree with blitz and killur but once the eukaryote cell (a microbe) arrived on the scene, then the microbe to man scenario becomes a definite reality"

How do you come to that conclusion?  Can you please provide a plausible Chronological Order for the evolution of Mans 10 VITAL organs that passes the comic book drawing laugh test? Which VITAL organ evolved 1st? Kidneys? Which VITAL organ evolved 2nd? Pancreas? Which VITAL organ evolved 3rd? Upper intestine? Which VITAL organ evolved 4th? Stomach? Which VITAL organ evolved 5th? Lungs? Which VITAL organ evolved 6th? Lower intestine? Which VITAL organ evolved 7th? Skin? Which VITAL organ evolved 8th? Heart? Which VITAL organ evolved 9th? Brain? Which VITAL organ evolved last? Liver? 

You see, ALL living organisms (Including Man) are IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX .. Incredibly so!

I believe that God made everything with such massive and irreducible complexity that NO ONE can HONESTLY deny his existence.. The odds AGAINST a supernatural intelligence agent (God) as our causation have way too many Zeros..   But we have been here before dozens and dozens of times already as everyone knows.. Surely in a few months time you will say something along the same lines as if this conversation never happened...  The Bible says that you are without excuse.. I would listen if I were you. 

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, what if said:

i hate to disagree with blitz and killur but once the eukaryote cell (a microbe) arrived on the scene, then the microbe to man scenario becomes a definite reality.

I hate to disagree with "What If" but once I found a superman costume in my wardrobe, then the prospect the man of steel exists became a definite reality.

:rotfl3:

(Only your argument is worse, because there was no, "arrival", as it only exists in your imagination)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Blitzking said:

How do you come to that conclusion?

because i kicked darwinism out the door, that's how.

until you fully realize just how complex the eukaryote cell is then you can never understand my position.

and i haven't the patience to try and explain it to you.

 

edit:

BTW, the very thing you rail against happens every time a female becomes pregnant.

also, your original premise was microbe to man, then it all of a sudden shifted to a matter of abiogenesis.

please don't bother me with such nonsense blitz, you know full well i have been brutally honest in the area of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

(Only your argument is worse, . . .

i don't remember making an argument.

i've posted my view of how the cell might work and i've supported that view with links to various science sources.

i'm confident that the view i have is correct, regardless of how you feel about the subject.

Quote

. . . because there was no, "arrival", as it only exists in your imagination).

you mean . . . we aren't really here????

i have REPEATEDLY stated that science has NO CLUE how life arrived here.

i have recently provided a link that science has even given up on the random chemistry bit.

IOW, the cell DID NOT simply bootstrap itself from a pond of random reactions.

so don't come at me like i am "this" or "that".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, what if said:

you mean . . . we aren't really here????

No, I meant that there was no "arrival" of the eukaryotic cell in the past, according to an evolutionary timeline. 

Eukaryotic celled animals have always existed as far back as time goes, until the creation of them by God. Since we don't accept there was an evolutionary, "arrival" on an evolution timeline, it's begging the question fallacy to merely ASSUME it happened that way.

2 hours ago, what if said:

i don't remember making an argument.

You said, "once the eukaryote cell arrived on the scene".

The fault is shown with this EXAMPLE;

"Once 'WHAT IF' arrived at the scene of the crime, he then murdered her."

Can you see that if you didn't arrive on the scene of the crime, that we can't then simply ASSUME that you did because of the words, "once he arrived at the scene of the crime".

Don't you think it's rather a gaping hole in the statement if you were never at that place where the crime was committed, ever in your life?

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, what if said:

so don't come at me like i am "this" or "that".

Get out of the wrong side of the bed or something, today? I am not coming at you, I am just using the superman example to show how ludicrous it would be to accept the fantastic based only on an assumed event in history, because even if that event occurred, the evolution of a eukaryotic cell from a prokaryotic, what you then said could ensue was fantastical, that every creature could then invent itself. That would be like me inferring superman might exist if I were to find a superman costume.

Why on earth would you make such a leap of imagination? Because that's all it is - a belief macro evolution holds truth where it is nowhere to be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

Get out of the wrong side of the bed or something, today? I am not coming at you, I am just using the superman example to show how ludicrous it would be to accept the fantastic based only on an assumed event in history, because even if that event occurred, the evolution of a eukaryotic cell from a prokaryotic, what you then said could ensue was fantastical, that every creature could then invent itself. That would be like me inferring superman might exist if I were to find a superman costume.

Why on earth would you make such a leap of imagination? Because that's all it is - a belief macro evolution holds truth where it is nowhere to be found.

:acigar::acigar::acigar::acigar::acigar::yoda:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

Get out of the wrong side of the bed or something, today?

 

i apologize.

it's just being cooped up in this house is making me nuts.

my tight financial situation doesn't help.

Quote

I am not coming at you, I am just using the superman example to show how ludicrous it would be to accept the fantastic based only on an assumed event in history, because even if that event occurred, the evolution of a eukaryotic cell from a prokaryotic, what you then said could ensue was fantastical, that every creature could then invent itself

as you may or may not know, there is no evidence of which came first prokaryote or eukaryote.

this is one example of conjecture becoming chiseled in stone fact.

it's being depicted in this manner to show increasing complexity.

also, this is one reason "evolution from the first cell" should be separate from "abiogenesis".

from what i've learned about the workings of the cell, evolution is a no brainer.

the real question is how (abiogenesis) this was accomplished.

it's really no different than a group of light switches beating a grand master champion.

one you understand that those light switches are being manipulated by a very complex program then the answer is obvious.

the same thing applies to the cell.

this is the primary reason darwinism is being defended so vigorously, it HAS to be kept simple, and the cell is very far from simple.

don't worry mike, i haven't seen anything that rules out a god.

Quote

Why on earth would you make such a leap of imagination? Because that's all it is - a belief macro evolution holds truth where it is nowhere to be found.

you would be hard pressed to find in my 1800 or so posts where i said i believed in macro-evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, what if said:

because i kicked darwinism out the door, that's how.

until you fully realize just how complex the eukaryote cell is then you can never understand my position.

and i haven't the patience to try and explain it to you.

 

edit:

BTW, the very thing you rail against happens every time a female becomes pregnant.

also, your original premise was microbe to man, then it all of a sudden shifted to a matter of abiogenesis.

please don't bother me with such nonsense blitz, you know full well i have been brutally honest in the area of evolution.

"BTW, the very thing you rail against happens every time a female becomes pregnant."

Wow, I thought 9 month long pregnancies were tough on the poor gals, now, in order to force yourself to believe in the Mindless Many Million Year Mud to Man Myth of Evolutionism you want to pretend that in the past "Long ago and far away" the females had to carry those kids for 500 million years!! 

Take it easy on the gals!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, what if said:

i apologize.

it's just being cooped up in this house is making me nuts.

my tight financial situation doesn't help.

Take a ticket and get in line, friend. :D 

(some daily exercise is the key for me, go into a country place where there are trees, breathe slowly.) I feel better coming home after exercise, then you feel you've earned your cup of tea and your cake and your favourite hobbit-chair. :D And feel free to PM me for friendly chat!! You aren't alone, Horatio is with you!  :);) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms