|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 26, 2024 9:34:15 GMT
I do not conflate evolution with the origin of life. Your people do that when when you try to dismiss one with the other. And you just tried again to dismiss intelligent design by conflating it with creationism. You do not understand how important it is to show your own argument for the origin of life. You think that while you cannot explain it today, just give it a million years. No, it is not even moving in that direction. If it were moving in that direction you might have a point, we might give it more time. It obviously is not going anywhere. In order for the reversals of entropy necessary for life, an intelligent agency is required.
Then who are the people on the evolution side that claim that evolution can explain the origin of life? Certainly no evolutionary scientists make that claim. Because they're the same thing. Intelligent Design is creationism but wrapped in scientific babble to make it look scientific. But makes no predictions, it's not falsifiable nor testable because it's not science. You're repeating questions I just answered.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 26, 2024 9:37:00 GMT
Then who are the people on the evolution side that claim that evolution can explain the origin of life? Certainly no evolutionary scientists make that claim. Because they're the same thing. Intelligent Design is creationism but wrapped in scientific babble to make it look scientific. But makes no predictions, it's not falsifiable nor testable because it's not science. You're repeating questions I just answered. Where?
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 26, 2024 9:59:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 26, 2024 10:17:41 GMT
Where in that post do you show that people on the evolution side are claiming that the evolution explains the origin of life?
|
|
|
Post by furor teutonicus on Apr 26, 2024 10:51:39 GMT
You keep conflating evolution with the origin of life which is something creationists or people who don't understand the evolution say. I never saw anyone on "evolution side" suggest that it can explain the origin of life. Nonsense. Most atheists know that creationists are small minority of Christians who take the Bible literally. Also, doesn't change the fact that the Intelligent Design is not scientific but it's in fact creationism by another name.
I do not conflate evolution with the origin of life. Your people do that when when you try to dismiss one with the other.
And you just tried again to dismiss intelligent design by conflating it with creationism.
You do not understand how important it is to show your own argument for the origin of life. You think that while you cannot explain it today, just give it a million years. No, it is not even moving in that direction. If it were moving in that direction you might have a point, we might give it more time. It obviously is not going anywhere. In order for the reversals of entropy necessary for life, an intelligent agency is required.
You consider it more likely, with all things we know about evolution, mutation and genetics today, that "someone/thing" created life rather than abiogenesis?
Like "ok, this one time we use magic, a creator, something divine, an intelligent designer" call it whatever you prefer but for all of the rest of the processes we stick with biology and physics?
|
|
|
Post by merh on Apr 26, 2024 11:31:29 GMT
OMG he's that evil journalist that refused to regurgitate MSM narratives. I need to hate him to prove I'm virtuous. Tucker Carlson went to school here. Local radio hosts have spoken poorly of him. Morning Joe regular Willie Geist was a regular on Tucker, Carlson's MSNBC show.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Apr 26, 2024 11:38:19 GMT
Given that fossilization is extremely rare, we're actually pretty lucky to have several examples in the fossil record of transitional fossils.
I'll never get the thinking of (usually Bible thumping) people who argue against evolution.
We've got plenty of examples of it when certain species get separated.......and time passes......and lo and behold, they take slightly different paths.
I think it just comes down to how the human brain just isn't all that good at recognizing massively large numbers..........whether it's the size of space or the passage of millions or even billions of years.
One of my Seminary teachers argued why couldn't God use science, evolution, etc. The Bible says God created the universe in 6 days & rested on the 7th, but it also says the life of a man is but a blink of an eye to God, so who can say how long a day we're talking? Each day could be 1000 yrs or more. The idea God just magicked the universe into existence "poof". Why? Light didn't just appear. Stars were made, etc. So why not "Nope, don't like this." but rather than throw the whole batch out, couldn't God tweak the mix, steer it to evolve into something else?
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 26, 2024 12:31:17 GMT
One of my Seminary teachers argued why couldn't God use science, evolution, etc. The Bible says God created the universe in 6 days & rested on the 7th, but it also says the life of a man is but a blink of an eye to God, so who can say how long a day we're talking? Each day could be 1000 yrs or more. The idea God just magicked the universe into existence "poof". Why? Light didn't just appear. Stars were made, etc. So why not "Nope, don't like this." but rather than throw the whole batch out, couldn't God tweak the mix, steer it to evolve into something else?
I think that's an excellent observation/argument, too. They claim some of the earlier Bible peeps lived hundreds of years, too? Different manners of tracking time, perhaps?
Why couldn't God have already made another universe? Had it contract onto itself into a tiny speck and then BOOM! the big bang here for this universe? Again, it's not like most human brains can grasp many of these concepts.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 26, 2024 12:46:02 GMT
They were rather obviously about maintaining the filthy lie that evolution is not in the Bible. Evolution by natural selection is not in the bible, anywhere. Breeding is not what Darwin was theorizing about. That you would repeatedly even suggest this shows how little you understand the subject. The version of intelligent design that you support might be, but you are an internet nobody and you don't matter. What matters is what the people behind the intelligent design movement believe, and they most certainly hold it in opposition to Darwinian evolution.What, in specific terms from the science of chemistry, do you mean by this claim?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 26, 2024 12:47:53 GMT
Here is the math that explains what laboratories have observed for decades. Yes, there can be small, trivial reversals of entropy. There can be spontaneous construction. In mathematical language, "construction > 0." There is however more to the story. All the agencies of construction are also very much agencies of destruction. Mathematically, "destruction > construction." Those two facts combine to give a "limit" to construction the laboratory can observe. As construction proceeds the likelihood it gets broken increases. At some point the probability of destruction reaches "1" or absolute certainty. That is the limit observed in laboratories for decades. Case closed. This entire passage does not contain so much as one single observation from any laboratory. Nor does it contain any genuine math. Gee, I wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 26, 2024 13:02:36 GMT
I do not conflate evolution with the origin of life. Your people do that when when you try to dismiss one with the other. And you just tried again to dismiss intelligent design by conflating it with creationism. You do not understand how important it is to show your own argument for the origin of life. You think that while you cannot explain it today, just give it a million years. No, it is not even moving in that direction. If it were moving in that direction you might have a point, we might give it more time. It obviously is not going anywhere. In order for the reversals of entropy necessary for life, an intelligent agency is required.
You consider it more likely, with all things we know about evolution, mutation and genetics today, that "someone/thing" created life rather than abiogenesis?
Like "ok, this one time we use magic, a creator, something divine, an intelligent designer" call it whatever you prefer but for all of the rest of the processes we stick with biology and physics? If you are complaining about a god-of-the-gaps argument you're wasting our time. You might get five or ten years to find an answer. It's been over 150 years. We can use short chains of RNA now to see what they can do. We can know for a certainty what is going to happen because we can watch it happening -- or not happening. I can see you do not like to admit the answer has in fact evaded science. Most people don't like to admit it, even the people who do. It really doesn't matter whether you like it or not though. The answer has evaded science and there is nothing else to try. By the way, starting with short chains of RNA is a sort of a cheat. People got tired of watching the amino acids from the Miller-Urey experiment do nothing and decided to skip ahead to short chains of RNA. Now we're tired of watching that go nowhere. What's next? It is obvious that you know nothing of evolution, mutation or genetics. Nobody argues against intelligent design any more except retarded atheist kids on the internet where they can still dominate.
|
|
|
Post by furor teutonicus on Apr 26, 2024 13:26:48 GMT
You consider it more likely, with all things we know about evolution, mutation and genetics today, that "someone/thing" created life rather than abiogenesis?
Like "ok, this one time we use magic, a creator, something divine, an intelligent designer" call it whatever you prefer but for all of the rest of the processes we stick with biology and physics? If you are complaining about a god-of-the-gaps argument you're wasting our time. You might get five or ten years to find an answer. It's been over 150 years. We can use short chains of RNA now to see what they can do. We can know for a certainty what is going to happen because we can watch it happening -- or not happening. I can see you do not like to admit the answer has in fact evaded science. Most people don't like to admit it, even the people who do. It really doesn't matter whether you like it or not though. The answer has evaded science and there is nothing else to try. By the way, starting with short chains of RNA is a sort of a cheat. People got tired of watching the amino acids from the Miller-Urey experiment do nothing and decided to skip ahead to short chains of RNA. Now we're tired of watching that go nowhere. What's next? It is obvious that you know nothing of evolution, mutation or genetics. Nobody argues against intelligent design any more except retarded atheist kids on the internet where they can still dominate. If all this wall of text was supposed to say "there isn't an definite answer yet" - then that is correct. But that goes for 99.99% of things happening in the universe - we just don't know yet.
My initial question remained unanswered: You consider it more likely, with all things we know about evolution, mutation and genetics today, that "someone/thing" created life rather than abiogenesis? Like "ok, this one time we use magic, a creator, something divine, an intelligent designer" call it whatever you prefer but for all of the rest of the processes we stick with biology and physics?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 26, 2024 13:34:39 GMT
OK then who are these alleged "experts" that actually understand ID? Give actual names. Or are you somehow the only person on Earth that actually understands ID? Try to give an actual answer and not childish insults. Where you went to school and where I went to school are totally different. You depend on "experts" to tell you what to think. My school does their own thinking. Somewhere along the line your "experts" lost touch. You are fighters, not thinkers, and now you have no "experts" to tell you what you should fight to defend. There you go. If I show you experts you'll agree with me? I do not need your opinion. I do not need your approval. You do not get a vote. There is no voting in science. You will have no idea until someone you recognize as an expert tells you what to think. It's too bad you have no idea who are the experts. So in other words you can't. That's all I needed to know.
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Apr 26, 2024 14:06:46 GMT
You keep coming up with beautiful idiocies that you seem to expect others to agree with. Evolutionists expect evolution to act on rocks? Hmmmm. I will check David Attenboroughs docos and David Suzukis speeches to see if they say that Of course with your amazing pronouncements in this thread you would be the perfect person to winkle out where Democrats go wrong. At first your antics were amusing, but it has become disturbing how incompetent you are. Some "experts" on evolution are very careful to note that evolution on rocks is rather unlikely. They speak instead of "abiogenesis." The vast majority of the public appears to miss that point. Are you trying to make a case for intelligent design or claim the case is already made? I say go for it. I have been convinced from the start myself. It amazes me what excuses people make to deny the truth. I do address those excuses, and you might find this helps. The problem is not the scientists. They can see in labs what is possible and not possible. The problem is the enormous numbers of the public who can't see anything. It has to be explained to them in ways they cannot challenge.LOL You are serious? You make up this dumb shit hoping your audience is as dumbas you and think you are a genius for saying gobbledegook they can't understand. Whatever floats your boat. It seems your inability to discern intelligeng discourse hid the fact that I criticised Intelligent design and pointed out (as others also did) that abiogenesis is not evolution and bringing it up is little more than a deflection from discussing real evolution.
|
|
|
Post by san926f on Apr 26, 2024 14:15:32 GMT
I went to Catholic school for 13 years and we were taught evolution, both in grade and high school.
And how did they serve it up to you in that setting?
Seems to me you're limiting your deity if you can't buy into the theory that they made everything .......to include evolution. And that some desert dwellers simply got the time periods/passage of time wrong because they couldn't comprehend.
It's not wrong necessarily. Time is relative. You ever see the Nolan film Interstellar? Even the experience of time is relative. I did a 12 hour shift last night and it felt like 20 hours. If I had spent it with a friend/lover doing something fun it would have felt like the time flew by in half as long. As creation is described as coming into being in Genesis, it could easily be a metaphor for evolution. Fun fact: The same elements that make up the Earth's crust are the same elements that make up the human body. It's about all I remember from my college chemistry class. And to me, it is all too perfect. The Earth is the perfect distance from the sun and the moon the perfect distance from the Earth to support life on this rock. The planets in our solar system often act as shields, pulling into their gravity wells the rogue objects what would threaten the tiny rock we call home. Is this luck, or a divine set-up? How one answers that question depends on faith. But I will say this, science has never threatened my faith, only strengthened it. It is humanity its self that shakes my faith occasionally.
|
|