N0help4u asked me elsewhere to explain as to how I believe this earth came into being.

Well : as belief has religious connotations, I do not BELIEVE that the earth came into being by any deity doing a once-only job in only 6 days. Mainly because I do not see any need for deities to exist, nor objective supported evidence for the existence of such deities.

Evolution is just a physical process involving evolution, biology, and lot's of time.
The origin of the universe is a cosmological process involving also lot's of time.
If people like Nohelp4u want to know more about evolution , why don't they ask for that?
And if people like Nohelp4u want to know more about the origin of the universe, why don't they ask for that?
Why always ask indirect questions, and combine that with a religious connotation like the "belief" argument ?

:)

·

I have asked you several times through the years WHAT DO YOU believe.
How do YOU think the earth came into being?
What is your thoughts on evolution?
What and how do you think we started as and progressed to?

Think/believe either or is YOUR belief on the way you think it happened
Doesn't look like you gave much of an answer here either.

So are you going to answer since I just asked?

I have asked you several times through the years WHAT DO YOU believe.
Linda : and I have answered that already many times : I do not believe anything in regards to religious matters. Note that I do not mind that people believe. I only dislike people trying to convince me of their belief - specially once I have clearly informed them not to be interested. So please rephrase your questions in the future : I do NOT BELIEVE in anything religious.

The origin on the universe is not something you believe in, except for those who believe in religious creation.


How do YOU think the earth came into being?
It is not what I THINK. Science has a perfect and objective supported explanation on how almost every solar system is born. And I accept that explanation as most probable.
A near by star passing through the galactic disk disturbed and/or a super nova influenced a gas cloud , which resulted in collapse of that cloud into several centers, each center becoming a solar system. Our telescopes clearly show that process happening all around our galaxy and everywhere in the universe.


What is your thoughts on evolution?
It is not what I THINK. Science clearly proved that over time all life forms we see today on earth evolved from only two cells. One "Eve" cell provided the basis of all DNA in each living cell, except for the DNA in each mitochondrion (the powerhouse of each cell), as that DNA seems to have resulted from an early capture and absorption of another living cell into the "Eve" cell. (See below the graphic on cell lay-out)


What and how do you think we started out as and progressed to?
Please clearly and precisely explain what you are asking here. This is extremely unclear.


Think/believe either or is YOUR belief on the way you think it happened
Doesn't look like you gave much of an answer here either.
Please clearly and precisely explain what you are asking here. This also is extremely unclear.


So are you going to answer since I just asked?
I never refused to answer any of your questions. But as long as you keep harping about belief or the euphemism you use now (think / thoughts), all I can say is that I do not believe - at least not in religious based explanations.
The problem is yours, with your unclarity of questioning, and with trying to add belief into items like standard scientific subjects that do not require any religious belief connotations, like evolution and origin of the universe.

Like my topic question clearly stated : if you want to know my thoughts on a topic, just ask me. But do not try to add a religious meaning on to that !

:rolleyes:

·

Think/believe either or is YOUR belief on the way you think it happened
XxxDoesn't look like you gave much of an answer here either ---xxx meant to delete sorry.
***Please clearly and precisely explain what you are asking here. This also is extremely unclear.

I NEVER said believe IN
I say what do you believe
AS IN
Dictionary:
Believe
(bĭ-lēv') pronunciation

v. -lieved, -liev·ing, -lieves.

1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

BY what do you THINK I mean what scientific things do you adhere to as what you think is the beginning of life and the universe
---------

What and how do you think we started as and progressed to?
***Please clearly and precisely explain what you are asking here. This is extremely unclear.

You answered it with the two cells and Eve
--------
***Like my topic question clearly stated : if you want to know my thoughts on a topic, just ask me. But do not try to add a religious meaning on to that !


Whether you believe it or not I am capable of discussing issues separately (science/religion)


:D

Doesn't look like you gave much of an answer here either.
If you do not ask questions properly, you will not get a proper reply either.
I do not care about any definitions you get from whatever obscure dictionary on belief/believe.
I answered to every line of your previous post, and still you complain...

Why not start commenting on what I already replied to you..?

:rolleyes:

·

Doesn't look like you gave much of an answer here either.------meant to delete that line after I cut and pasted sorry :o

Not much to comment on yet

Two more ?'s
What *scientific explanation put the planets together

Between the two cells to human form what are the steps in between

[science never was my better subject]

Doesn't look like you gave much of an answer here either.
You can keep asking whatever you want. But when are you going to discuss my replies to what you asked before in this topic?
If you do not do that, I will not waste my time on answering new questions posted by you.

Do you know the adage : "A fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer" ?
I will not say from myself that I am wise, but you surely ask a lot of (unclear) questions...

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

It is not what I THINK. Science clearly proved that over time all life forms we see today on earth evolved from only two cells. One "Eve" cell provided the basis of all DNA in each living cell, except for the DNA in each mitochondrion (the powerhouse of each cell), as that DNA seems to have resulted from an early capture and absorption of another living cell into the "Eve" cell. (See below the graphic on cell lay-out)

·

"prove it" show us the link ;)

I like they way they co-opt "eve" an obvious religious reference. :D

My comments:


Linda : and I have answered that already many times : I do not believe anything in regards to religious matters. Note that I do not mind that people believe. I only dislike people trying to convince me of their belief - specially once I have clearly informed them not to be interested. So please rephrase your questions in the future : I do NOT BELIEVE in anything religious.

I know what you have to say about believe and religion! You have made that clear more than many times. I get it even if others do not.


The origin on the universe is not something you believe in, except for those who believe in religious creation.

It is not what I THINK. Science has a perfect and objective supported explanation on how almost each and every solar system is born. And I accept that explanation as most probable.
A near by star passing through the galactic disk disturbed and/or a super nova influenced a gas cloud , which resulted in collapse of that cloud into several centers, each center becoming a solar system. Our telescopes clearly show that process happening all around our galaxy and everywhere in the universe.

It is not what I THINK.


I explained that in post #3
BUT I have heard variations of how people interpret scientific evidence/fact
Such as the big bang which you do not believe whereas others say it is science.
SO THAT is why I ask you what you think


Science clearly proved that over time all life forms we see today on earth evolved from only two cells. One "Eve" cell provided the basis of all DNA in each living cell, except for the DNA in each mitochondrion (the powerhouse of each cell), as that DNA seems to have resulted from an early capture and absorption of another living cell into the "Eve" cell. (See below the graphic on cell lay-out)

Okay that is a start to answering my questions but I still want to know the answers to my other two questions to get a better picture. Not much I can comment on on two cells.




I never refused to answer any of your questions. But as long as you keep harping about belief or the euphemism you use now (think / thoughts), all I can say is that I do not believe - at least not in religious based explanations.
The problem is yours, with your unclarity of questioning, and with trying to add belief into items like standard scientific subjects that do not require any religious belief connotations, like evolution and origin of the universe.

The sooner you understand that when I say believe it is the definition in #3 but you are so hung up on connecting religion and believe that you can't seem to see past that.


:rolleyes:



Please clearly and precisely explain what you are asking here. This is extremely unclear.

What *scientific explanation put the planets together

Between the two cells to human form what are the steps in between

[science never was my better subject]

Once again, scientists changing their minds and theories as new evidence comes about.


Comments by People in the News - Google News (http://news.google.com/news?btcid=2447b769c472273c)


The distance the eye migrates is directly related to the rate and degree of skull remodeling and bone ossification that occurs during metamorphosis, and these will vary with ecological conditions and, ultimately, with the responsiveness of metamorphic genes to thyroid hormone...

In effect, flatfish morphological asymmetry can be entirely dissociated from flatfish behavioral asymmetry!




So this scientist states eye changes occur in one lifetime, due to response to thyroid hormone, yet also postulates that it is behavior caused gene selection?

Which came first the gene or the behavior?


Fish Fossil May Resolve Questions On Natural Selection - Science - redOrbit (http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1473394/fish_fossil_may_resolve_questions_on_natural_selec tion/)





"This problem of the evolution of asymmetrical flatfishes was particularly puzzling to biologists because it was very hard to explain what evolutionary forces might have led to this transition," said Matt Friedman, the study’s author and a graduate student at the University of Chicago.

"How can you arrive at the pattern seen in living flatfishes via gradual evolution? There seems to be no adaptive reason to start down the gradual evolutionary path toward the flatfish condition, because surely these intermediates would not have any kind of evolutionary advantage," said Friedman, who also serves as a research associate at The Field Museum.

Some view this missing link as a flaw in the theory of natural selection. They argue that intermediate, transitional forms of the fish could not exist because there would be no survival benefit from having one eye that was slightly off center on the opposite side of the head.

Biologists subscribe to the “hopeful monster” theory, which says these changes occurred all at once through a large-scale mutation, which fortunately turned out to be very useful.

But Friedman's find indicates that flatfishes followed a more conventional evolutionary plan.

There is a broad implication for the tempo and mode of evolution here," Friedman said.

"Scientists had long assumed flatfishes must have arisen suddenly because they could not imagine the adaptive significance of intermediates, but this work delivers clear evidence that such intermediates did exist, and therefore, that flatfish asymmetry arose gradually."




Well which is it? Fast or slow, sudden or gradual?



Maybe 50 million years ago these flatfish had the same genes that allow for morphological changes in one lifetime, as described by the first link.

Evolution is just a physical process involving evolution, biology, and lot's of time.

·

Your sentence sure explains a lot? :p


Basketball is just a physical process involving basketball, biology, and lot's of time.

Or better yet

Sex is just a physical process involving sex, biology, and [ hopefullly :D ] lot's of time.

inthebox
Pretty much why I am asking what he believes that science has to say

YouTube - "Ooh Girl!" - An Honest R&B Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc8tPTVBRSc)


After all , life, evolution or not, involves reproduction :D

.... BUT I have heard variations of how people interpret scientific evidence/fact such as the big bang which you do not believe whereas others say it is science.
"... which you do not believe whereas others say it is science... "

One does not BELIEVE in science and it's findings. One accepts the scientific findings based on the objective supporting evidence on which these findings are based. So I say exactly the same as these "others".

The reason why people have to BELIEVE in for instance religion is that there is no objective supporting evidence for any iota of the religious dogmatic claims. That problem does not occur in scientific findings and theories, due to "the scientific method" used in the process.


okay that is a start to answering my questions but I still want to know the answers to my other two questions to get a better picture. Not much I can comment on on two cells.
I have replied to your questions. That you do not like my replies is your problem. Not mine. I am open to discuss these answers, but you keep harping on about your personal views being different, and the consequences that you seem to have in the process of replying to my answers.


The sooner you understand that when I say believe it is the definition in #3 but you are so hung up on connecting religion and believe that you can't seem to see past that.
The sooner you stop using the word "BELIEF" in regard to scientific theories and support, the earlier we can start debating. You fail to see that it is you yourself who is causing this problem.


... science never was my better subject]
Don't worry on that : even sassyT has that problem, even when she claims to have a degree in biology...

:D · · :rolleyes: · · :p · · ;) · · :D

· ·

Once again, scientists changing their minds and theories as new evidence comes about.
That is the beauty of science : it has a sort of build-in checking program that ensures that the latest findings can be included in the scientific arguments.

That is indeed different than a period of over 2000 years of dogmatic wild claims that may not be debated, while there is not one single iota of objective supporting evidence for any of the dogmatic claims. Give me therefore science any second of the day above all that religious hot air !

As to the rest of your post : if you want to discuss the general approach towards science and scientific findings and theories: go ahead. If you want to continue with your anti-scientific approach please go to the Christianity board where there are a lot of creationist peers !

:D · · :rolleyes: · · :p · · ;) · · :D

· ·

I do not understand why you do not understand the difference between believe and believe IN
Since you persist in making this a believe/religion babble page I find it useless to continue trying to have a discussion to educate my understanding of science here!

YOU are the one that KEEPS insisting you do not like Christians doing their religious/believe in babble but here I have not brought up religion, God or believe IN
One single time and you KEEP talking on that when I am trying to get some scientific facts established on what YOU ACCEPT as far as the earth coming into being and people going
From two cells to human form.

Since the word accept is the word you prefer over believe I will use that word so I do not further confuse YOUR hang up on the believe word.

I guess you have a double hang up on the word believe

1. one of those lost in translation words to your ears
2. You insist believe is a religious word when it really becomes a religious connotation when it is stated believe IN

AGAIN to explain:

I say what do you believe
AS IN
Dictionary:
Believe
(bĭ-lēv') pronunciation

v. -lieved, -liev·ing, -lieves.

1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.


Not that I expect you to ever understand that.

I find it futile to furture reply until you answer my two questions. If you replied to them as you claim I sure don't see the replies.

Why do you assume I do not like your replies. I did not say I do not like your two cell explanation. So therefore I guess the problem is not mine. ***WHERE am I harping anything about my personal beliefs. It seems you are reading a lot into things!!

I have replied to your questions. That you do not like my replies is your problem. Not mine. I am open to discuss these answers, but you keep harping on about your personal views being different, and the consequences that you seem to have in the process of replying to my answers.


****Please post the exact verses on this post that you are referring to as my harping on what I believe.
Any further babble on religion, belief and claiming I am saying things I have not said and I am not even replying

I thought YOU posted this so we could discuss science NOT Religion and you keep babbling about your interpretation of believe and religion. I haven't even brought up religion or what I believe once in this post.

As I have repeatedly stated here again and again is that I use the word believe in the
I believe the scientist about mars having ice on it. That does NOT mean I believe IN the scientist, mars or ice.

I do not understand why you do not understand the difference between believe and believe IN
I assume you mean here the noun BELIEF and the verb BELIEVE (in).
I'm sorry, but I can not help you in understanding this better, other than in stating that the essence of any BELIEF is based on assumptions lacking any objective supported evidence.

Example : if you THINK or BELIEVE that Obama is the better guy for the job, you do that on subjective assumptions, not on any objective supported evidence. The same goes for all religious claims. Scientific findings are however based on scientific evidence, i.e. by objective supported evidence.


Since you persist in making this a believe/religion babble page I find it useless to continue trying to have a discussion to educate my understanding of science here!
This is not a "page" but a topic, in which I referred to "Evolution" or "Origin of the Universe" and religion, as many people seem to have great difficulties in understanding the non-compatibility between religious approach/belief and science and the scientific method.

If you have questions on Evolution or on the Origin of the Universe, you have to address that from a scientific perspective.
If you have a question on religious belief you have to address that from a specific religious perspective.
But you can not address questions on scientific items and processes from a religious perspective, nor can you address questions on religion from a scientific perspective. Not if you intend to let the discussion have any logical sense at all.
As as far science is concerned all religious thinking lacks any scientific support.

All these "debates" by theists on Evolution and/or the Origin of the Universe are not about these scientific theories at all, but about the theist BELIEF in an almighty deity with supra-natural powers, a BELIEF that clashes with scientific findings. Hence the empty argumentation and waste of time and energy caused by that.

:D ;) :p :rolleyes: :D

·

I simply asked you 2 questions

What *scientific explanation put the planets together

Between the two cells to human form what are the steps in between

[science never was my better subject]
__________________

You have yet to reply to them, instead you prefer going over sematics of words instead of answering, when I am sure you understand what I mean no matter what words I use since I have explained my perspective of the word(s) repeatedly here.
We are already up to reply #17 and all you can do is babble over words.
Page, topic who cares!! It is a topic on a page you started!

Start a grammar topic or get back to the subject thank you!!

What *scientific explanation put the planets together

Between the two cells to human form what are the steps in between

I simply asked you 2 questions What *scientific explanation put the planets together . Between the two cells to human form what are the steps in between
Neither question has anything to do with "The origin of the Universe and religion", and "Evolution and religion" - which are the topics here.

If you really want to know the answer to your cosmological question on how planets came into being, ask that at the science board (where I will reply to it from a scientific perspective).

If you really want to know the answer to your evolution question on in between steps of evolution, ask that at the science board too (where I again will reply to it from a scientific perspective).

Here your questions have nothing to do with the topic of "Evolution" and religion, or "Origin of the Universe" and religion.

The issue here is : does any religious approach towards scientific topics make any logical sense, as religious belief is based on hot air, while science is based on objective supported evidence ?

;)

·


PS : I'll be back later : I have better things to do with my time at this moment !

;)

·

Then why the heck did you post the topic here
Sounds like you were just looking for me to argue religion with you since this is now not the proper board for you to give me an answer. Sorry I do not argue religion I state my belief/ take it or leave it.


does any religious approach towards scientific topics make any logical sense, as religious belief is based on hot air, while science is based on objective supported evidence ?

Since this is your topic here I have no idea why you ever brought MY name into it. OR stated N0help4u asked me elsewhere to explain as to how I believe this earth came into being. ---Put together/came into being.

If your purpose was to answer my questions and you already must of decided that this was not the board to answer my questions then you were just looking for a debate. I have already stated several times the answer to your question.

Then why the heck did you post the topic here
And why do you follow me around the board with your criticism?

:rolleyes:

·

That is the beauty of science : it has a sort of build-in checking program that ensures that the latest findings can be included in the scientific arguments.

That is indeed different than a period of over 2000 years of dogmatic wild claims that may not be debated, while there is not one single iota of objective supporting evidence for any of the dogmatic claims. Give me therefore science any second of the day above all that religious hot air !

As to the rest of your post : if you want to discuss the general approach towards science and scientific findings and theories: go ahead. If you want to continue with your anti-scientific approach please go to the Christianity board where there are a lot of creationist peers !

:D · · :rolleyes: · · :p · · ;) · · :D

· ·


Like evolution - not to be debated
Like global warming - not to be debated
Both examples of scientific intolerance


As to your second point - resorting to personal attacks and generalizing is clearly not scientific. :D

Like evolution and global warming. Both examples of scientific intolerance As to your second point - resorting to personal attacks and generalizing is clearly not scientific.
Who says these are not to be debated? Not I.
All I say is that science related theories are based on peer checking programs and rules that ensure that the latest findings are included, which guarantee an ever increasing higher level of support.

That is different than the procedure with religious dogmatic wild claims that may not be debated at all, while there is not one single iota of objective supporting evidence for any of these claims.

You and some of your peers want to attack scientific theories, but show great tension when the basis of any religious view is questioned. Now THAT is hypocrite!!

:rolleyes:

·

Evolution is just a physical process involving evolution, biology, and lot's of time.

·


The question of evolution was brought up by your opening question. I'm just asking you to explain the above :D , no need for the usual religious attacks, it gets tiresome.

Evolution is just a physical process involving evolution, biology, and lot's of time.

The question of evolution was brought up by your opening question. I'm just asking you to explain the above :D , no need for the usual religious attacks, it gets tiresome.
What is there more to explain? A child of 10 can understand that. Why don't you explain here where your problem is in understanding this?

:rolleyes:

·

What is there more to explain? A child of 10 can understand that. Why don't you explain here where your problem is in understanding this?

:rolleyes:

·


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/evolution-origin-universe-religion-236939-2.html#post1148394

Circular logic:D

Circular logic
I asked you : "Why don't you explain here where your problem is in understanding this?"
I note that you failed to reply that non-circular question, the essence of my previous point.

Not that I am surprised you don't...

:rolleyes:

·

N0help4u asked me elsewhere to explain as to how I believe this earth came into being.

Well : as belief has religious connotations,

Only for you. Belief is a very ordinary secular word with a secular definition:

Definitions of belief on the Web:

* any cognitive content held as true
* impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


I do not BELIEVE that the earth came into being by any deity doing a once-only job in only 6 days. Mainly because I do not see any need for deities to exist, nor objective supported evidence for the existence of such deities.

In other words, you don't believe that God created the world because you don't believe in God.

However that leaves the converse as also true. You believe that the earth came into being without God. Because if you hold any idea as true, then you believe that idea.


Evolution is just a physical process involving evolution, biology, and lot's of time.

And you've seen this? Or do you hold this idea as true even though you have not seen it happen with your own eyes?


The origin of the universe is a cosmological process involving also lot's of time.

And you've seen this as well? Or do you hold this idea as true although you have not seen it?


If people like Nohelp4u want to know more about evolution , why don't they ask for that? And if people like Nohelp4u want to know more about the origin of the universe, why don't they ask for that?

Obviously, it is because you have put yourself in the unreasonable position of claiming to hold no beliefs. Yet you have beliefs whether you like it or not.



Why always ask indirect questions, and combine that with a religious connotation like the "belief" argument ?

Obviously, you don't know what belief means or you don't accept the common definition of the word. Apparently you are trying to force your reductionist definition of that word upon us. But we live in the real world. All we have to do is open a dictionary to see that you are misusing the word "belief".

Sincerely,

De Maria

Only for you....
I almost always and only make such statements on board related to religion, and I almost always refer clearly to belief of religious claims, and where not specific to religious belief, the link to religion is obvious from the context of my position. After all : one may after thousands of times making the same statements at times slip on on something.

Only those who have problems with the (clarity of my) statements on religious belief would go as low as you do now in the hope that I would change my position, or can be proved wrong. I will not, and never will. I simply do not believe in religious matters, and note in that respect that never ever has there been any objective supporting evidence provided for the correctness of the existence of the Christian god (and any other god/gods), and that god is the Creator. Without that support any religion - except Buddhism - is nothing more than hot empty air!!

But you are free to search the Internet for statements from my hand that supports your suggestion. It will be in vain, as I never changed my approach. The reason why so many theists hate my guts as they know my arguments are sound and beyond denying.
Only you, Nohelp4u, sassyT, and few other religious blinded still have to learn that...

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

Cred

You have that evangelical fervor in your belief that there is no God, and you go on these religious boards proclaiming that; then you wonder why we argue with you :confused:

We, who believe, know that Jesus died for you, to give you salvation. If I truly disliked you, I would not try to tell you of this. :D

Cred You have that evangelical fervor in your belief that there is no God, and you go on these religious boards proclaiming that; then you wonder why we argue with you .... We, who believe, know that Jesus died for you, to give you salvation. If I truly disliked you, I would not try to tell you of this.
As always TOTAL NONSENSE !!!
I never have claimed there is no god. I observe, conclude, and state that there is no objective supporting evidence for the existence of any god, deity, or other supra-natural entity.

I do NEITHER wonder why you argue with me. I know why you do. I wonder why you theist guys and girls have so much problems admitting that you only BELIEVE whatever you believe, and that belief is not another word for reality...

You, who believes (in what?), do NOT know that Jesus died for you. You BELIEVE that Jesus died for you. And you BELIEVE that Jesus is God's son, and that Jesus is part of the Christian godly trinity.

And about that dislike : your actions and your word selection speaks "another language".

:rolleyes:

·

N0help4u asked me elsewhere to explain as to how I believe this earth came into being.

Well : as belief has religious connotations, I do not BELIEVE that the earth came into being by any deity doing a once-only job in only 6 days. Mainly because I do not see any need for deities to exist, nor objective supported evidence for the existence of such deities.

Evolution is just a physical process involving evolution, biology, and lot's of time.
The origin of the universe is a cosmological process involving also lot's of time.
If people like Nohelp4u want to know more about evolution , why don't they ask for that?
And if people like Nohelp4u want to know more about the origin of the universe, why don't they ask for that?
Why always ask indirect questions, and combine that with a religious connotation like the "belief" argument ?

:)

·
Be·lief Audio Help /bɪˈlif/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bi-leef] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.


From dictionary.com




Please understand that what you are saying is your belief.

...Please understand that what you are saying is your belief.
Please understand that on this specific board any reference to personal BELIEF refers to religious belief, unless clearly stated otherwise.

Of course I have personal beliefs. From political views to favoritism for sports teams to personal preferences.
But I have no religious belief. I do not claim the existence of any entity. Neither do I claim the non-existence of any entity. All I ask is for objective supporting evidence for any religious claim. So far there has never been anything towards that been forthcoming (although there were more than enough claims!)...

:D :D :D :D :D

·

Please understand that on this specific board any reference to personal BELIEF refers to religious belief, unless clearly stated otherwise.

Of course I have personal beliefs. From political views to favoritism for sports teams to personal preferences.
But I have no religious belief. I do not claim the existence of any entity. Neither do I claim the non-existence of any entity. All I ask is for objective supporting evidence for any religious claim. So far there has never been anything towards that been forthcoming (although there were more than enough claims!) ....

:D :D :D :D :D

·
So, you're believing to be undecided?

So, you're believing to be undecided?
Not really. My logic and all my senses say that God does not exist. But I can not prove a negative. Not too bad, as all theists together have been unable to prove over 2000+ years the much easier positive claim that God/Gods exist neither.
However - unlike any theist - I do not want to make statements that I can not support.

:rolleyes:

·

Not really. My logic and all my senses say that God does not exist. But I can not prove a negative. Not too bad, as all theists together have been unable to prove over 2000+ years the much easier positive claim that God/Gods exist neither.
However - unlike any theist - I do not want to make statements that I can not support.

:rolleyes:

·
So you're believing to not believe? Your faith is in your logic?

So you're believing to not believe? Your faith is in your logic?
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I clearly stated :

"My logic and all my senses say that God does not exist. But I can not prove a negative. Not too bad, as all theists together have been unable to prove over 2000+ years the much easier positive claim that God/Gods exist neither. However - unlike any theist - I do not want to make statements that I can not support."

I do not believe that god/gods exist, and I do not believe that god/gods do not exist.
My logic says that god/gods do not exist as there is not one single iota of evidence for that existence. I know that I can not prove either position, so I just do not keep any religious beliefs.

And no : I do not believe not to believe. But unlike an Agnostic I do not doubt neither.
I just do not want to make statements that I can not support!

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

Cred,

We BELIEVE that Christ died for all of our salvation because it is written as a factual occurrence in the bestselling (and proven) book in the world "the BIBLE" Just as the "theory" of evolution is written in a book or handed down by word of mouth and you believe their (the scientists) account of things.

One question regarding evolution, Where did the very first molecule/cell, etc come from that started this whole process? There has to be some beginning distinguished from the rest of the process, right?

We BELIEVE that Christ died for all of our salvation ...
Yes, you believe that. But the essence of Christianity is that Jesus could provide that function because he was claimed to be God's son.


One question regarding evolution, Where did the very first molecule/cell, etc come from that started this whole process?
The first cell is not part of evolution, but of abiogenesis.
Evolution is about how that frist cell managed to become the source of all life on earth.

Darwin never bothered where that first cell came from. I do neither, but there are several excellent thesis about that, involving the extremely interesting features of crystaline clay. Google yourself to the information... Lot's of information available on the Internet !

:rolleyes:

·

Interesting so in evolution there is no beginning and no end...

Which is completely contrary to God as his existence is the Alpha and the Omega (the beginning and the end)

Do you not find it interesting that Darwin and yourself "don't bother" with that little piece missing from evolution?

Do you not find it interesting that Darwin and yourself "don't bother" with that little piece missing from evolution??
Not at all. There is "NOTHING" missing from evolution (if you mean with "nothing" abiogenesis). Evolution starts with the first living cell.

Is this all new to you ? Are you all alone on that mountain, perhaps?

:D

·

Not at all. There is "NOTHING" missing from evolution (if you mean with "nothing" abiogenesis). Evolution starts with the first living cell.

Is this all new to you ? Are you all alone on that mountain, perhaps?

:D

·


You are good with the slick comments huh?

Anyway, "Nothing" is missing from evolution but a beginning? Does that make sense to you? OR wait you use a another terminology for the steps BEFORE evolution so that makes your theory right, sorry missed that point.

So what or who created the first living cell... or are you not bothered with that?

To quote you Cred "And if people like Nohelp4u want to know more about the origin of the universe, why don't they ask for that?"

I am asking so lay off the slick comments...

To quote you Cred "And if people like Nohelp4u want to know more about the origin of the universe, why don't they ask for that?"

I am asking so lay off the slick comments...

On the last board that Cred was on, he stated that there was a great deal of scientific evidence for evolution - I kept asking him to post it, but he never did.

We also got into the first cell question, and he told us that the first cell came from pond scum (which in itself living cells). When asked where the pond scum came from, he had no answer.

The simplest living cell is far more complex than any chemical plant that man has ever built, and each mechanism and process in the cell is essential for it to exist. How this complex organism came to be, how the first cell came to be is absolutely essential.

You all know that god can still exist with evolution, right? In fact if I did believe in god evolution would make more sense. Everything that people have attributed to god so far has had a natural explainable non-super natural explanation. If your god is truly the ultimate designer would he not be able to follow a continuity of design and keep with the same pattern of a non-super natural explanation of everything. It seems to me as if you are limiting the power of your own god. People have misunderstood the bible before like when they thought the bible said the world was flat. How can you be so sure that's not happening now after all only your god is perfect, right?

You all know that god can still exist with evolution, right?

When I was an evolutionist, I studied the topic from both a scientific and scriptural perspective, and came to the rather shocking conclusion that evolution matched up to neither. To try to resolve that problem, I moved to theistic evolution, which is what you describe, and I found that to be a less feasible theory.

So, no, one can not reconcile scripture with evolution. Scripture does agree with the scientific evidence, though.

On the last board that Cred was on, he stated that there was a great deal of scientific evidence for evolution - I kept asking him to post it, but he never did.
On the last board that Tj3 was on (as Toms777), he stated that he had objective supporting proof for God's existence. I kept asking him to post it, but he never did. The best he could do was a list of subjective claims.


We also got into the first cell question, and he told us that the first cell came from pond scum (which in itself living cells). When asked where the pond scum came from, he had no answer.
Of course if I really would have claimed that, would I have used the derogatory creationists' term "pond scum".
No of course ! Shows you that you simply can't trust Tom Smith...


The simplest living cell is far more complex than any chemical plant that man has ever built, and each mechanism and process in the cell is essential for it to exist. How this complex organism came to be, how the first cell came to be is absolutely essential.
A single cell can indeed be more complex than a chemical plant. But the original first cell did not have to be that complex at all. Nature had 3.500.000.000 years to experiment to come from that first simple cell to today's complex version.

In another topic I described how Japanses scientists are struggling to use an artificial DNA version to store data. But in all such cases does our problems in knowledge , technology, and/or understanding means that a supra-natural entity created that? No of course ! That is just shifting our ignorance one step up. Tj3 is very good in doing that... But not good enough...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

On the last board that Tj3 was on (as Toms777), he stated that he had objective supporting proof for God's existence. I kept asking him to post it, but he never did. The best he could do was a list of subjective claims.


John, I posted it dozens of times, and you kept saying that you could not see it. It seemed to me that your eyes had selective filtering on your eyes.. Other people saw it just fine.


Of course if I really would have claimed that, would I have used the derogatory creationists' term "pond scum".
No of course ! Shows you that you simply can't trust Tom Smith...

Ah, denial of the facts. Some folk see it as the best alternative to a sound rebuttal if you don't have a sound rebuttal! Something like denying that you could see posts put on the board dozens of times.


A single cell can indeed be more complex than a chemical plant. But the original first cell did not have to be that complex at all. Nature had 3.500.000.000 years to experiment to come from that first simple cell to today's complex version.

Then provide us with the sequence of events - what did that first cell look like and how did it evolve into the complexity that we have today. That would be far more effective that your denials.

John, I posted it dozens of times, and you kept saying that you could not see it. It seemed to me that your eyes had selective filtering on your eyes.. Other people saw it just fine.
I am not going into that again : all you posted was a long list of SUBJECTIVE supported evidence. Not of OBJECTIVE supportied evidence, which you promissed, but never posted.

But Tom : why don't you prove me wrong? Why don't you post that list once more? All you do here every time is evade doing just that by stating that you posted it already so many times.

You lie about that, and you know that you do. And every time you do, I can show everyone that you just do that, because you refuse to post that list... Suits me fine...

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

I am not going into that again : all you posted was a long list of SUBJECTIVE supported evidence. Not of OBJECTIVE supportied evidence, which you promissed, but never posted.

Ah, I believe that this is the first time that you actually admit that something was posted. Now if you had only done that on the prior board, we could have discussed why you felt that it was not adequate.


But Tom : why don't you prove me wrong? Why don't you post that list once more? All you do here every time is evade doing just that by stating that you posted it already so many times.

First of all, there is no "list". Second, if I saw you exhibit an interest in examining the relative merits of the issue, I might do so, but since I see no different attitude here than I saw on there, I don't see why we should simply migrate the discussion that we had on there to here, which simply waste time and space. It is not worth my effort to waste large amounts of my valuable time on someone who has demonstrated a complete lack of interest in the facts.


You lie about that, and you know that you do. And every time you do, I can show everyone that you just do that, because you refuse to post that list .

I keep telling you, there is no list. I am not sure where this so called list comes from. Maybe you are getting something mixed up.

But as for your false accusation, I kept a large number of post from those days, and I may yet have some of the posts where you argued pond scum and suddenly stopped when asked where it came from.

Not at all. There is "NOTHING" missing from evolution (if you mean with "nothing" abiogenesis). Evolution starts with the first living cell.

·

What a scientific cop out :D

We really don't know how something as complex as a single cell started... so we,. ah,. ahem,. oh,. will just start with a single cell :p


Abiogenesis - exactly what scientific peer reviewed article demonstrates, that with carbon, sulfur, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen atoms; and no cloning, and no DNA or RNA template; can a viable single cell that can reproduce itself be manufactured? :confused:


Here is a sample of the complexity of a single cell:

The role of microtubule movement in bidirectional organelle transport — PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/07/11/0800031105.abstract)



Go ahead, look it up... it is scientific... I swear, there is no mention of God or religion, nor evolution for that matter,. but read it for yourself, the amazing complexity of a single cell is a wonder to behold. :D

You all can complain on the internet as much as you want about evolution. Really all you are doing is telling young educated people that your religion is a myth and ignores evidence. Something that their grandparents once believe in to ward off evil spirits but has no meaning in our modern age. LIke all religions that have come before, yours has doomed itself to failure.

You all can complain on the internet as much as you want about evolution. Really all you are doing is telling young educated people that your religion is a myth and ignores evidence.

Quite the contrary. As a person with a scientific background, I am amazed at how many people ignore the evidence and remain tied to evolution.

And you saying you have a scientific background means nothing on the internet except to try to falsely give weight to your posts.

What you are trying to say is "I'm the most intelligent person on the planet and even though the vast majority of people who have studied this come to a different conclusion you should listen to me because I am the smartest person on the intertubes." Sounds silly saying it that way doesn't it but that is exactly what you are saying.

I could say I have a PHD in biology from MIT, I could even go as far as to say my name is Stephanie Capaldi who if you look you find that she currently teaches there, but if my content doesn't back it up, I just sound stupid. There are lots of ways that creation could be presented as a scientific theory and if any of them were valid they would be peer reviewed theories. Almost everything that is post from creationist is meant to confuse the public who barely has any scientific knowledge and all of it is considered drivel by anyone who has actually studied.

Your religion has come to an evolutionary dead end so to speak on this issue.

Tj3's profile says he is an electrical engineer, which means he most likely knows about as much about evolutionary biology as I know about tropospheric ducting.

Among practicing biologists, evolution is universally accepted. But it's common for small numbers of scientists outside of biology to use their status as scientists to criticize evolution even though they have no special insight into biology generally or evolution specifically. It would make as much sense for a biologist to critique modern physics on the grounds that "I'm a scientist." When a non biologist says "There's no evidence for evolution," it's like hearing someone say, "There's no evidence that electricity exists."

On the last board that Cred was on, he stated that there was a great deal of scientific evidence for evolution - I kept asking him to post it, but he never did.

We also got into the first cell question, and he told us that the first cell came from pond scum (which in itself living cells). When asked where the pond scum came from, he had no answer.

The simplest living cell is far more complex than any chemical plant that man has ever built, and each mechanism and process in the cell is essential for it to exist. How this complex organism came to be, how the first cell came to be is absolutely essential.

Evolution doesn't pretend to explain where the first life came from. The first cells could have evolved from non living molecules--there's ample evidence for that--or it might have come from space. Nobody can be sure.

But there's plenty evidence for evolution itself --the evolution of millions of complex species from simpler forebears--in other words, bacteria, then photosynthetic bacteria, then eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus, mitochondria, and other "organelles" like our cells), yeast cells, plants, simple one-celled "animals" (protists), and animals of every kind. It's all laid out in the fossil record like a story book and the same story is confirmed by genetic studies. You can look up the specific evidence in any introductory biology textbook, so there's no need for people to list it here over and over. I've summarized the evidence at length on this forum, so you can look that up too.

But as I've asked Sassy, the real question is not what evidence is there, but what evidence would you accept? Biologists are obviously satisfied with the evidence. You are not. But if you are open to the idea that an idea can be supported or disproved by evidence--in other words to scientific discourse--then you should be able to say what evidence would support evolution if that evidence existed. That is, what evidence do you think would support the idea of common descent--organisms being all related to one another? Once people here know what evidence you'd accept, they can decide if it exists or not, or discuss whether your requirements are reasonable. But if you just reject all evidence out of hand, there's no real discussion of anything.

So what would be some evidence for all organisms being related? (I'm assuming you don't think it exists. But I'm just asking what it would have to look like if it did.)

Tj3's profile says he is an electrical engineer, which means he most likely knows about as much about evolutionary biology as I know about tropospheric ducting.

It's an interesting fact that engineers are a large proportion (majority, I think) of scientifically qualified people who deny evolution and believe in intelligent design... Maybe because they design things all day.

It's an interesting fact that engineers are a large proportion (majority, i think) of scientifically qualified people who deny evolution and believe in intelligent design... Maybe because they design things all day.
That argument seems invalid for electronic engineers : just count me out !

:D

·

That argument seems invalid for electronic engineers : just count me out !

:D

·

Don't worry, I said nothing about you, just about the majority of scientifically qualified people who believe in intelligent design :)

Originally Posted by Credendovidis :
Not at all. There is "NOTHING" missing from evolution (if you mean with "nothing" abiogenesis). Evolution starts with the first living cell.

... Abiogenesis - exactly what scientific peer reviewed article demonstrates, that with carbon, sulfur, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen atoms; and no cloning, and no DNA or RNA template; can a viable single cell that can reproduce itself be manufactured?
So now you attack - instead of evolution - abiogenesis, and demand objective supported evidence for a scientific thesis that explains the origin of the first cell, while you yourself (and none of your theist peers) can provide any objective supported evidence for your own religious creation claim?

The abiogenesis thesis makes sense, seems highly possible, is based on available resources and conditions at that time, and does not require an invisible unproven to exist entity that is claimed to be able to create an entire universe in 6 days only, but that requires multiple human assistance in doing everything (from writing, composing, copying, translating, to distributing) in the process of preparing "his" own manual for humanity.

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

Of course, the theory of gravitation explains how gravity interacts, but does not explain how matter generates this force. Is gravity unacceptable too?

Originally Posted by Credendovidis :

So now you attack - instead of evolution - abiogenesis, and demand objective supported evidence for a scientific thesis that explains the origin of the first cell, while you yourself (and none of your theist peers) can provide any objective supported evidence for your own religious creation claim?

The abiogenesis thesis makes sense, seems highly possible, is based on available resources and conditions at that time, and does not require an invisible unproven to exist entity that is claimed to be able to create an entire universe in 6 days only, but that requires multiple human assistance in doing everything (from writing, composing, copying, translating, to distributing) in the process of preparing "his" own manual for humanity.

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·


I guess until you see that there are things in life (many) that Can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt you would never be able to have enough faith to believe in a God that created the world and you and I. There are so many things that surround us everyday that are beautifully designed and orchestrated that in my belief could have only come via God, but that is my faith and I will always put that to the test over proof established by less than perfect men.

But less than perfect men are the ones who came up with your faith. There is no object proven to come directly from god telling you how to worship just less than perfect men writing things down a 1000 years ago.

It's an interesting fact that engineers are a large proportion (majority, i think) of scientifically qualified people who deny evolution and believe in intelligent design... Maybe because they design things all day.

I guess I have trouble with the idea that an engineer is by definition "scientifically qualified." It seems to me there are lots of different kinds of engineers, who vary not only in things like civil, electrical, and computer, but also in whether they do any kind of science at all, versus simply designing simple systems or structures day after day. (Which there is nothing wrong with, but it's not scientific research. Being good at math does not make someone a scientist.)

And of course there is the matter of creativity. I remember an engineering student at my university telling me that the most employable engineers were C+ students, meaning that the bulk of mid level engineering jobs didn't demand a lot of ambition or talent, just basic competence.

And no offense intended to Credendovidis, who obviously DOES understand science. :)

but less than perfect men are the ones who came up with your faith. There is no object proven to come directly from god telling you how to worship just less than perfect men writing things down a 1000 years ago.


Sure the Bible was written and documented by less than perfect man BUT one has to believe (like I do) that the Bible was "God breathed or God inspired" Again one has to take that purely on faith.

And this was just not one man writing the entire Bible and having God speak to him but MANY different people over many years were all things tie into one another and do not contradict each other but support the accounts across large periods

I think it would be useful in discussions of evolution to distinguish between the evidence that evolution happened versus: (1) origin of life questions (which has been done here) and (2) the way in which evolution occurs (including but not limited to mechanisms). After reading these threads for a while, I see that creationists tend to go for one or the other of these latter two issues--both of which are hard to explain to novices--rather than the fact of evolution itself--which is much easier to explain.

Increasingly, I have been trying to focus on, "How do we know evolution occurred?" The answer is that we know evolution happened because evolution is literally recorded in the fossil record. To my knowledge, no one has offered another explanation for the pattern of fossils that shows a clear narrative of events that tells the story of evolution. (I have asked for an alternate explanation from creationists and received no answer so far.)

Second, and this is a separate line of evidence, you can construct a likely family tree of all these organisms based on their physical anatomy (as Linnaeus did). Third, that family tree AND the fact of organisms being related is confirmed by molecular data--whether DNA or protein.

None of this has anything to do with (1) the first cells or (2) whether evolution is always gradual or can be fast, whether macroevolution is at the species level (it is considered to be by biologists) or at the level of genera or higher (as Sassy argues). In other words, most of the creationist arguments against evolution are pitched at details about HOW evolution happened and ignore the entire body of evidence that demonstrates unequivocally that it must have happened.

One last point about Gaps: It's unclear to me why creationists keep harping on the gaps in the fossil record. So there at gaps. What of it? Gaps neither undermine the idea of evolution nor lend support for Creationism. I think it's important to get away from the idea that the gaps are a problem that needs to be explained away. Gaps are totally expected from everything we know, not only about the processes by which fossil beds are laid down, but also about how evolution itself happens. It would be strange if there were not gaps!

Originally Posted by Credendovidis :

So now you attack - instead of evolution - abiogenesis, and demand objective supported evidence for a scientific thesis that explains the origin of the first cell, while you yourself (and none of your theist peers) can provide any objective supported evidence for your own religious creation claim?

The abiogenesis thesis makes sense, seems highly possible, is based on available resources and conditions at that time, and does not require an invisible unproven to exist entity that is claimed to be able to create an entire universe in 6 days only, but that requires multiple human assistance in doing everything (from writing, composing, copying, translating, to distributing) in the process of preparing "his" own manual for humanity.



·

I find your excuses for not providing evidence for the things you claim are scientific, like abiogenesis or evolution, amusing at the very least, and intellectually dishonest more so.
;)

You believe in things like evolution or abiogenesis without the physical evidence you demand. :confused:

Again, I ask; where are the scientificly reproducibe experiments taking the basic elements like Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Sulfur, and Carbon and coming up with a functional piece of DNA or RNA? :confused:

Then once you have accomplished that where did the amino acids to make proteins come from? The ribosomes? The cell membrane? :confused:

I ask you for evidence of what you believe and you deflect answereing the question asked by going to your pet thesis: that there is no ohysical evidence of "god," short of God coming down and touching you. Now bottom line, I agree with you. It takes faith and belief.

You have to remember this is a religious forum. To those who believe in God, science belittles. God is relational. God is beyond science, cannot be contained within the boundaries of science, and I BELIEVE is the creator of science, and physical laws, and what you may believe is "nature" or "natural selection."

I guess I have trouble with the idea that an engineer is by definition "scientifically qualified." It seems to me there are lots of different kinds of engineers, who vary not only in things like civil, electrical, and computer, but also in whether they do any kind of science at all, versus simply designing simple systems or structures day after day. (Which there is nothing wrong with, but it's not scientific research. Being good at math does not make someone a scientist.)

And of course there is the matter of creativity. I remember an engineering student at my university telling me that the most employable engineers were C+ students, meaning that the bulk of mid level engineering jobs didn't demand a lot of ambition or talent, just basic competence.

And no offense intended to Credendovidis, who obviously DOES understand science. :)

The problem with engineers is that answers need to be ceratain and repeatable.
Evolution poses enormous mathematical improbababilities. and lack of proof.
The best evolution can do is provide retrospective studies without knowing the original factors involved.

Michaelb provided Lenski's work with E Coli - to become citrate + took 44000 generations and 20 years of a rigorously controlled manmade environment, and they still don't know exactly which generation or how it came about.

Here is a scientist, once atheist, who sees the physical evidence and comes to a different conclusion. Time 2006, he has a discussion with Dawkins, you might find interesting, of course dawkins is not a geneticist.

Francis Collins (geneticist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist))

I find your excuses for not providing evidence for the things you claim are scientific, like abiogenesis or evolution, amusing at the very least, and intellectually dishonest more so.
;)

Again, I ask; where are the scientificly reproducibe experiments taking the basic elements like Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Sulfur, and Carbon and coming up with a functional piece of DNA or RNA? :confused:

This is an unreasonable demand or argument. Just because researchers cannot make a cell from scratch does not mean that it cannot happen, let alone that it could never have happened. There are lots of things that cannot easily be made from scratch (basic elements such as nitrogen and oxygen), which we nonetheless know are made every day. For example, plants synthethesize tons of sugar every day using carbon dioxide, water and the energy from the sun. You, inthebox, could not do this, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen!

Meanwhile, researchers ARE working to synthesize artificial cells, called "protocells." When they eventually succeed--whether in 3 years or 10--the argument, unreasonable as it, will be even more meaningless.


You have to remember this is a religious forum.

This is incorrect and has been covered elsewhere recently. This is not the Christianity forum and, as I understand it, topics related to the interface between science and religion are permitted. Please consult admin Curlyben if you doubt this.


To those who believe in God, science belittles.

I would argue that this is an extreme fundamentalist position--that science by its very nature "belittles"--a position not shared by the vast majority of believers.

Since technologies of every description cannot come into being without science, and you are expressing yourself by way of one of the most sophisticated technologies every invented, it is hypocritical to argue that science belittles rather than enlarges your world.

[QUOTE=inthebox]
Evolution poses enormous mathematical improbababilities. and lack of proof./QUOTE]

Then, if you reject all the evidence that is totally accepted by biology for the last 100 years, offer an alternative explanation for the pattern of organisms in the fossil record. Organisms go from simple bacteria without nuclei, to eukaryotic cells (with nuclei and other internal "organelles") to simple multicellular organisms, to more complex ones.
Everything pretty much starts in the sea as aquatic life, then, much later, different groups appear one by one in land environments. From fish to amphibians, to reptiles that make eggs that can hatch on land, to birds and mammals.

You NEVER find birds before fish. You NEVER find wolves before the first bacteria.

Explain this pattern in another way. Evolution Does explain this pattern, by the way, and the pattern is further confirmed by all biological information known, including biogeographic data, geophysical data, genetic and protein data. All of it tells the same story of evolution. So, really, the burden is on you to propose an alternate hypothesis that explains ALL these facts--as evolution does--and I guarantee you'll get a Japan Prize (the highest prize in biology--there's no Nobel Prize for biology).

It's fine with me if you believe God did it and don't believe in evolution. That's a personal choice. But it's not fine to say there's no evidence for evolution when the opposite is true: which is that there's no evidence that doesn't support the idea that all species came into existence through evolution. Even Sassy concedes that species evolve. :)

And you saying you have a scientific background means nothing on the internet except to try to falsely give weight to your posts.

It seems that you feel a need to use ad hominems to bolster your position. It doesn't.

Evolution doesn't pretend to explain where the first life came from.

Then the theory is dead in the water. Unless life can start, the rest of the theory means nothing.


But there's plenty evidence for evolution itself --the evolution of millions of complex species from simpler forebears--in other words, bacteria, then photosynthetic bacteria, then eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus, mitochondria, and other "organelles" like our cells), yeast cells, plants, simple one-celled "animals" (protists), and animals of every kind. It's all laid out in the fossil record like a story book and the same story is confirmed by genetic studies. You can look up the specific evidence in any introductory biology textbook, so there's no need for people to list it here over and over. I've summarized the evidence at length on this forum, so you can look that up too.

Similarity does not mean that they evolved. That is an assumption. A common designer is also a possible source of similarity in design.

I guess I have trouble with the idea that an engineer is by definition "scientifically qualified." It seems to me there are lots of different kinds of engineers, who vary not only in things like civil, electrical, and computer, but also in whether they do any kind of science at all, versus simply designing simple systems or structures day after day. (Which there is nothing wrong with, but it's not scientific research. Being good at math does not make someone a scientist.)

Perhaps you are not aware that engineers must have e scientific training also.

Then the theory is dead in the water. Unless life can start, the rest of the theory means nothing.

Nothing? Only to you! :)

Biology as a discipline definitely doesn't agree with you! The theory of evolution has a huge amount of explanatory power. Evolution isn't meant to explain the origin of life, although that's unquestionably an interesting question. But I agree that the origin of life is a more compelling question philosophically than the origin of every species of plant or animal that has ever lived. All the same, MOST people find it interesting to learn about how dinosaurs and sharks came into existence millions of years ago, to say nothing of how modern plants and animals like daisies and roses, horses and wolves came into being.


Similarity does not mean that they evolved. that is an assumption. A common designer is also a possible source of similarity in design.

Um. I didn't say that.
I said the pattern of the fossil record tells a specific story of change over time that is consistent with the theory of evolution. That story is backed up by comparative studies of every description, whether those comparisons are in genes, proteins, or anatomy, to name a few. It doesn't matter whether you study, plants, insects, fish, or mammals. All these studies give the same answer--evolution. They never give the answer that it couldn't have been evolution, and that's been true for 100 years.

As far as science is concerned, there's no going back to a Biblical interpretation of Genesis. That's a strictly religious interpretation and has no scientific standing whatever. Genesis obviously HAS important religious standing to people like yourself and within some circles of people. But it's not science.

It's important to understand the difference between science and religion. What you are talking about is religion, which is another kettle of fish, and not subject to rules of evidence anyway, so there's no need to prove or disprove anything you say as long as you agree it's religious in nature. But if you DO want to discuss Creationism and call it science, then you become subject to the rules of scientific evidence, which means the burden is on you to provide an alternate hypothesis (to evolution) that explains all the same evidence in a consistent way. It's my opinion that if that were possible, it would have been done by now and made it into a scientific paper of CONSIDERABLE note.

This is an unreasonable demand or argument. Just because researchers cannot make a cell from scratch does not mean that it cannot happen, let alone that it could never have happened. There are lots of things that cannot easily be made from scratch (basic elements such as nitrogen and oxygen), which we nonetheless know are made every day. For example, plants synthethesize tons of sugar every day using carbon dioxide, water and the energy from the sun. You, inthebox, could not do this, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen!

But photosynthesis can be proven with grade school experiments.

Plant A gets water, co2, and sunlight
Plant B gets water, co2, and dark

measure which one grows.

I'm no chemist, but how do you think meth or plastic or fas is made? Basic elements are extracted then combind to make a finished product.





Meanwhile, researchers ARE working to synthesize artificial cells, called "protocells." When they eventually succeed--whether in 3 years or 10--the argument, unreasonable as it, will be even more meaningless.

You are relying on FAITH. "When" is not reality, at least in the present moment. I can say "WHEN" cows ddevelop we can have surf and turf :)




This is incorrect and has been covered elsewhere recently. This is not the Christianity forum and, as I understand it, topics related to the interface between science and religion are permitted. Please consult admin Curlyben if you doubt this.


It is a religious forum and I find it ironic ;) the evangelical fervor by which some argue that :

1] God does not exist
2] That evolution is believeable




Since technologies of every description cannot come into being without science, and you are expressing yourself by way of one of the most sophisticated technologies every invented, it is hypocritical to argue that science belittles rather than enlarges your world.





I said that science belittles or is beneath God, since I believe He is the creator of all, including what we believe to be science.

Science, in fact, gives evidence to the wonders of God's creation.

For anyone, who thinks evolution is believeable, take a cell and / or molecular biology course and ask yourself, how did the complexity of a single living cell come about.

Then take a genetics course and ask yourself how did genes for various organ systems come about? From a single cell.

Then the theory is dead in the water. Unless life can start, the rest of the theory means nothing.



Similarity does not mean that they evolved. that is an assumption. A common designer is also a possible source of similarity in design.


A very good point

It's only a good point if you don't understand biology or evolution.

It's only a good point if you don't understand biology or evolution.
Or logical thinking !

:D

·

Biology as a discipline definitely doesn't agree with you! The theory of evolution has a huge amount of explanatory power. Evolution isn't meant to explain the origin of life, although that's unquestionably an interesting question. But I agree that the origin of life is a more compelling question philosophically than the origin of every species of plant or animal that has ever lived. All the same, MOST people find it interesting to learn about how dinosaurs and sharks came into existence millions of years ago, to say nothing of how modern plants and animals like daisies and roses, horses and wolves came into being.

Nice story - but keep in mind that I have looked into the evidence behind it, and the mounds of assumptions.


Um. I didn't say that.
I said the pattern of the fossil record tells a specific story of change over time that is consistent with the theory of evolution.

Even Darwin said that the fossil record was the largest problem or weakness in his theory. And the weakness in the fossil record remains today.

Right and since Darwin's time we have had 150 years of fossil discoveries and all fossil discoveries since Darwin's time has pointed towards evolution. It's no wonder you don't understand it if your still looking at 150 year old information.

Right and since Darwin's time we have had 150 years of fossil discoveries and all fossil discoveries since Darwin's time has pointed towards evolution. It's no wonder you don't understand it if your still looking at 150 year old information.

Actually, that is not true. The fossil evidence still is a weak link in the whole theory.

As I just said to someone else, take some time and check out the mounds of assumptions upon which the theory of evolution is based.

I have and I don't have a problem with a single one of them. Evolution no matter how you slice it is the best theory to explain how life came to be so complex on this planet. If there was another theory that explained things better then we might have a debate but until then you are a just flat-earther. Trying to confuse the public in order to spread your religion.
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Do they really think the earth is flat? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7540427.stm)

Actually, that is not true. The fossil evidence still is a weak link in the whole theory.

As I just said to someone else, take some time and check out the mounds of assumptions upon which the theory of evolution is based.

Tj3,
Darwin was specifically concerned about the rate of evolution, whether it happened quickly or slowly, not whether it happened.

For Darwin, the questions were all about mechanism. In other words, what makes the refrigerator work, not whether it keeps things cold. Biologists know the refrigerator stays cold and want to know how that works. We know that evolution happened and continues to happen. We continue to study how it produces the kinds of results it does.

Today we understand vastly more about the mechanisms by which evolution occurs and we know that most of Darwin's doubts about HOW evolution occurred were unjustified. There was so much biology that hadn't been uncovered yet and so he didn't have access to the information we have today. For example, in his day, no one even knew about genes or DNA. He had no idea how information could be passed from parent to child. But he was not in doubt that evolution had happened. And, in 150 years of research in biology, no information has arisen that would cast doubt on the fact of evolution having occurred.

The fossil record is probably the single strongest piece of evidence for evolution, since it is an actual record of past events. The fossil record speaks to several issues. It tells us that evolution occurred. It tells us in what order different kinds of organisms evolved. And it tells us which animals and plants changed quickly and which ones changed hardly at all over long periods. Nothing about the fossil record is "weak." I think what you take to be "assumptions" are just things you may not have understood or accepted because you didn't have enough information.
I can recommend a good book. :)

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Do they really think the earth is flat? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7540427.stm)

Good article!


And while we all respect a degree of scepticism towards the authorities, says Ms Garwood, the flat-earthers show things can go too far.
"It is always good to question 'how we know what we know', but it is also good to have the ability to accept compelling evidence - such as the photographs of Earth from space."


I found myself wondering what flat earthers think when they fly in a jet at 35,000 or 40,000 feet and can see the curve of the Earth beneath them. Have any of them taken a polar route flight between Europe and North America? What do they think when they look down? Do they think airlines are all in on creating a customized hoax for every passenger on every flight? Talk about expensive! No wonder the airline industry is in trouble.

Today we understand vastly more about the mechanisms by which evolution occurs and we know that most of Darwin's doubts about HOW evolution occurred were unjustified.

Really? If we understand anything about the process, then how did the first cell originate?


The fossil record is probably the single strongest piece of evidence for evolution, since it is an actual record of past events.

I agree that it is the strongest piece of evidence for evolution, and yet it is full of extremely serious problems, which most who believe in evolution prefer to overlook. It is the strongest thing upon which evolutionists hang their hat, but yet what the fossil record therefore shows is how weak the theory reqally is.

Really? If we understand anything about the process, then how did the first cell originate?

In the strict sense, that is not evolution. Evolution is change from one form of life to another. So there has to be life first and life consists of living cells.

Evolution is shrew-like mammals evolving into primates, or bacteria whose DNA is just in a blob in the center of the cell evolving into eukaryotic cells that keep their DNA inside a membrane. Life is, by definition, made of cells. So until the first cells came into being you are talking about processes that are different from evolution in subtle but important ways. How those first cells came into being very likely involved processes that resemble or include evolution. But the formation of the first cells is not considered evolution, which begins with the first cells.

Some faithful people accept the evolution of one species into as another as consistent with Biblical teaching, and even the evolution of all species, families, and kingdoms of plants and animals, but they believe that God must have got the ball rolling by creating the first cells and creating the rules by which evolution occurs. Is that what you believe?


I agree that [the fossil record] is the strongest piece of evidence for evolution, and yet it is full of extremely serious problems, which most who believe in evolution prefer to overlook. It is the strongest thing upon which evolutionists hang their hat, but yet what the fossil record therefore shows is how weak the theory reqally is.

How so?

In the strict sense, that is not evolution. Evolution is change from one form of life to another. So there has to be life first and life consists of living cells.

It is evolution. Unless a non-living substance evolves into living matter, then, according to the theory, there is no chance for life. So this is absolutely critical to your whole theory.

Your argument is like saying that you don't need to explain how a plane gets off the ground to explain flight. We just assuming that somehow through some unexplained magical process, it started flying.

It is evolution. Unless a non-living substance evolves into living matter, then, according to the theory, there is no chance for life. So this is absolutely critical to your whole theory.

I think you've confounded different things, Tj3. The origin of life is certainly of critical interest to biologists and there couldn't have been evolution without an origin of the first cells. But not being able to explain the origin of the first cells doesn't undermine the fact that evolution happened anymore than not knowing where the pizza delivery man was born keeps me from knowing whether he is standing in the doorway and has brought me a pizza. He has brought the pizza whether he was born in Poughkeepsie or Brighton. Evolution happened. It's recorded in the fossil record over and over again.


Your argument is like saying that you don't need to explain how a plane gets off the ground to explain flight.

In fact, you don't. It's perfectly reasonable to study flight without understanding how takeoff occurs. It's common for scientists (and engineers :)) to study the simpler part of something. First I study how the plane flies. Later, I study the specifics of takeoff and landing, which involve more complex problems.

You are confusing understanding something with justifying it, and you've reversed the problem too. Evolution isn't about justifying anything. On the other hand, to turn your argument around, unless you can personally prove that no cells ever originated anywhere, you cannot disprove evolution with your reasoning.

I think you've confounded different things, Tj3. The origin of life is certainly of critical interest to biologists and there couldn't have been evolution without an origin of the first cells. But not being able to explain the origin of the first cells doesn't undermine the fact that evolution happened anymore than not knowing where the pizza delivery man was born keeps me from knowing whether he is standing in the doorway and has brought me a pizza. He has brought the pizza whether he was born in Poughkeepsie or Brighton. Evolution happened. It's recorded in the fossil record over and over again.

Even scientists who are straightforward about the evidence would not make such a statement. There is not and never has been a single proven case of macro-evolution. Further, the fact that there is no means whatsoever of the single cell having come into existence is fatal. Believeing that it must simply have happened because otherwise your theory falls apart is a matter of faith not of science.

The evidence is there the only people who don't see it are people with a religious agenda. Which I have no problem with you pushing your religious agenda just be honest about it say "I don't care about evidence for evolution I believe god did it cause the bible says so." instead of trying to hide your agenda with faulty science specifically meant to confuse the general public.

Further, the fact that there is no means whatsoever of the single cell having come into existence is fatal. Believeing that it must simply have happened because otherwise your theory falls apart is a matter of faith not of science.

The theory that we are all related does not fall apart just because we can't be certain about the origins of the first cell. That's like saying that you can't know who your father and grandfather were unless you know the names of all 32 of your great-, great- grandparents. Logically, you are making the same argument. We know pretty far back, just not all the way. But we don't need to know the whole way back.

We don't need to know the origin of the first cells to know that birds evolved from dinosaurs or that mammals evolved from early reptiles. We can study the process starting just about anywhere. You could wipe out the whole fossil record starting back 1 billion years ago and still be able to deduce that evolution had occurred--there's so much information in the fossil record, it's overwhelming.

The evidence in the fossil record shows the order in which life appeared, stratum by stratum, just like the pages of an immense book. If there's a book of life, the fossil record is it. It shows that it happened, and that's what is important. How it works is immensely interesting to a lot of people, but for the average person, all that matters is that evolution is the simple, mindless process that got us here. What they want to make of that is an individual choice.

For asking and michealb

The evidence is there ...//... instead of trying to hide your agenda with faulty science specifically meant to confuse the general public.
I know Tom Smith (Tj3 - Toms777) now for about a decade. He will never admit that he does precisely that.
He likes to run in religious based circular arguments, and will switch from one to another argument to support his religious views, while attacking non-religious items like evolution.
Tom knows perfectly well that abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Over the years I and others have told and explained that to him more than 50 to 100 times, but he keeps using that non-argument time and time again.
Toms main intent with this method is exhausting his opponent into dropping the argument, not in to a true discussion of the matter involved.

Asking : my compliments for your stamina, firmness, and clear explanations and argumentations.

;)

The theory that we are all related does not fall apart just because we can't be certain about the origins of the first cell.

That is not what we are discussing. It is not certainty - it is that there is not even a feasible guess.


We don't need to know the origin of the first cells to know that birds evolved from dinosaurs or that mammals evolved from early reptiles.

You know that, eh? Well we could get into some discussions around some of the steps of progression later in the so-called evolutionary cycle, if you are agreeing that the step from non-living to living is one that yopu just accept on faith as having happened even though you cannopt come up with any idea as to how it mioht have happened and have no evidence as to it happening.

For asking and michealb

I know Tom Smith (Tj3 - Toms777) now for about a decade. He will never admit that he does precisely that.
He likes to run in religious based circular arguments, and will switch from one to another argument to support his religious views, while attacking non-religious items like evolution.
Tom knows perfectly well that abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Over the years I and others have told and explained that to him more than 50 to 100 times, but he keeps using that non-argument time and time again.
Toms main intent with this method is exhausting his opponent into dropping the argument, not in to a true discussion of the matter involved.

Asking : my compliments for your stamina, firmness, and clear explanations and argumentations.

;)

Hey John, I see that instead of sound, fact based arguments, you keep going after the person.

That is not what we are discussing. It is not certainty - it is that there is not even a feasible guess.

The research on this is so feasible now that I hesitate every time I write that we don't know how the first cells came into existence! We nearly do... which I suppose is bad news for you, since if those ideas become widely accepted as scientific dogma, it will be harder for you to make this argument. In the mean time, I am content to observe that it makes no difference to our understanding of what happened afterward.


if you are agreeing that the step from non-living to living is one that yopu just accept on faith as having happened even though you cannopt come up with any idea as to how it mioht have happened and have no evidence as to it happening.

No. I don't accept it (on faith or otherwise). I neither accept it nor reject it. I simply don't know about it and I'm content to not know. Science is full of things we don't know. (I don't know whether you carry the BRCAII gene, but that doesn't prevent me from discussing evolution with you or assessing your intelligence and values. I don't have to know everything about something to know something about it.) Scientists are able to separate what they know from what they don't without just making something up to fill the gap. Filling in the gaps with faith-based assertions that have no basis in reality is a religious approach.

Credendovidis wrote:
Asking : my compliments for your stamina, firmness, and clear explanations and argumentations.
Thanks!
Asking

Hey John, I see that instead of sound, fact based arguments, you keep going after the person.
No Tom ! Fortunately I am not like you. All I did was informing them who you are and how you normally operate !

Tom : I welcome your presence here at AMHD. I also note that you were suspended from Answerway for aggressively attacking people there. Please be aware that they also suspend people here on AMHD !

By the way : when was the last time YOU provided "sound, fact based arguments" ???
Surely not when you posted that list of which you claimed it contained objective supporting evidence towards the existence of your "god".
I guess that if you ever did provide that, it must have been when you were still an atheist!!

:rolleyes:

·

No Tom ! Fortunately I am not like you. All I did was informing them who you are and how you normally operate !


Heh heh heh, John, I think that everyone knows how you operate!


Tom : I welcome your presence here at AMHD. I also note that you were suspended from Answerway for aggressively attacking people there.

Actually, that is not true. You were, as we know, but the owner did not like me raising the question of inconsistent enforcement of the rules. Anyway, this is off-topic for this board. If you wish to discuss old times, PM would be the best way.


Please be aware that they also suspend people here on AMHD !

I know - speak to some of your old friends from AW who used to be on here ;)

The research on this is so feasible now that I hesitate every time I write that we don't know how the first cells came into existence! We nearly do...which I suppose is bad news for you, since if those ideas become widely accepted as scientific dogma, it will be harder for you to make this argument.

You know, I have been in so many of these discussions, and the vast majority of time, the only answer that I get is that "it has been proven", or "there is a lot of evidence", but rarely does anyone actually try to provide any evidence of substance to substantiate claims such as this.

You know, I have been in so many of these discussions, and the vast majority of time, the only answer that I get is that "it has been proven", or "there is a lot of evidence", but rarely does anyone actually try to provide any evidence of substance to substantiate claims such as this.

Well, I haven't discussed the origin of cells stuff, but I have discussed the evidence for evolution extensively on this forum. But I haven't got very good responses to actual science, and since this is, bafflingly, still the "religious discussions" board, I hesitate to get into it here. I'll start a separate thread sometime in Science called What is the Evidence for Evolution and we can take that up there. And maybe one for biogenesis as well. Would that be good?

Well, I haven't discussed the origin of cells stuff, but I have discussed the evidence for evolution extensively on this forum. But I haven't got very good responses to actual science, and since this is, bafflingly, still the "religious discussions" board, I hesitate to get into it here.

I trust that you will note that when we discuss the topic of evolution that, even though I am a Christian, the scientific evidence is so much ion concert with scripture that I rarely if ever find it necessary to use anything by science itself to refute evolutionists. It is evolutionists that usually retire into faith when the evidence cannot support their beliefs.


I'll start a separate thread sometime in Science called What is the Evidence for Evolution and we can take that up there. And maybe one for biogenesis as well. Would that be good?

Feel free to do so. I am sure that you will get some interesting discussions!

I trust that you will note that when we discuss the topic of evolution that, even though I am a Christian, the scientific evidence is so much ion concert with scripture that I rarely if ever find it necessary to use anything by science itself to refute evolutionists. It is evolutionists that usually retire into faith when the evidence cannot support their beliefs.


What you are trying to say is "I'm the most intelligent person on the planet and even though the vast majority of people who have studied this come to a different conclusion you should listen to me because I am the smartest person on the intertubes." Sounds silly saying it that way doesn't it but that is exactly what you are saying.

I could say I have a PHD in biology from MIT, I could even go as far as to say my name is Stephanie Capaldi who if you look you find that she currently teaches there, but if my content doesn't back it up, I just sound stupid. There are lots of ways that creation could be presented as a scientific theory and if any of them were valid they would be peer reviewed theories. Almost everything that is post from creationist is meant to confuse the public who barely has any scientific knowledge and all of it is considered drivel by anyone who has actually studied.

Your religion has come to an evolutionary dead end so to speak on this issue.

Seems we have come full circle

What you are trying to say is "I'm the most intelligent person on the planet and even though the vast majority of people who have studied this come to a different conclusion you should listen to me because I am the smartest person on the intertubes." Sounds silly saying it that way doesn't it but that is exactly what you are saying.


Now note. Rather than dealing with the scientific questions that I raise, you have brought forward the following points:

1) You initiate an attack against my character because I disagree with you.
2) You say that I must be wrong because I don't agree with many other people who you happen to agree with - you must believe that the majority is always right also, correct?
3) The fact that thousands of scientists do not agree with you means that they must be wrong because,. well, they disagree with you.

Sigh! Please let me know when you are ready to get off your high horse and deal with the issue.

Science moves closer to artificial life - Nation - Kentucky.com (http://www.kentucky.com/216/story/481444.html)



They've already accomplished some steps needed to construct a simple, single-celled organism that's capable of evolving and reproducing itself, basic requirements for life...


Other experts, however, said it might take decades or centuries before scientists would be able to ”create life from scratch,“ as the quest is colloquially known...



So far, what they're doing is more like copying nature's clever tricks than creating new life forms in the laboratory, with all the tremendous philosophical, social and religious issues that such a stunning feat would imply.


”Creating artificial life is very different from reproducing what existed already in nature,“ said Eckhard Wimmer, a microbiologist at Stony Brook University on Long Island, NY. ”That (artificial life) may be possible in the future, but this future may be hundreds of years away.“ ...

Of a plan to construct what they call a ”minimal cell“ containing only 151 genes. That's far fewer than the smallest natural microorganism, which has nearly 500.

Church said that biologists studying synthesis didn't claim to be creating living organisms by ”going from nothing to something.“ Instead, he said ”nearly all such projects are inspired by existing molecules.“



A fascinating article, don't you think?

All these intelligent scientists trying to design artificial life.

It is amazing to think that this was just "nature's clever trick," while never defining what nature is or how nature accomplished this.

1) You initiate an attack against my character because I disagree with you

I don't attack your character I'm debating whether you have the background knowledge to understand the answers given to you many times. I am also debating whether you have a bias towards one answer the prevents you from seeing the evidence fairly.

2) You say that I must be wrong because I don't agree with many other people who you happen to agree with - you must believe that the majority is always right also, correct?

I'm saying you must be wrong because of the majority of the people who are qualified to understand the evidence say you are wrong. Also there isn't a shred of credible evidence for any other theory out there. I don't believe the majority is always correct but I feel that if your in the minority is is up to you to prove your idea.

3) The fact that thousands of scientists do not agree with you means that they must be wrong because,. well, they disagree with you.

It has nothing to do with what I think like you, I'm just a smuck on the internet. What matters is 100 years of scientific research that has all pointed towards evolution. Not once has a fossil EVER been discovered that doesn't agree with evolution. Research that is so good that no one disagrees with it, except for people that are trying to push a religious agenda.

I don't attack your character I'm debating whether you have the background knowledge to understand the answers given to you many times. I am also debating whether you have a bias towards one answer the prevents you from seeing the evidence fairly.

No, just because I disagree with you, each time you attack me. If you don't feel the need to do so, just stick to the issue at hand, and don't go after the people.


2) You say that I must be wrong because I don't agree with many other people who you happen to agree with - you must believe that the majority is always right also, correct?

I'm saying you must be wrong because of the majority of the people who are qualified to understand the evidence say you are wrong. Also there isn't a shred of credible evidence for any other theory out there. I don't believe the majority is always correct but I feel that if your in the minority is is up to you to prove your idea.

So, if you don't believe that the majority is always right, why do you feel that anyone who does not agree with what you believe to be the majority view is automatically wrong?

And if you are willing to discuss a topic on the basis of its merits, why can we not get you to stay on the topic?


3) The fact that thousands of scientists do not agree with you means that they must be wrong because,. well, they disagree with you.

It has nothing to do with what I think like you, I'm just a smuck on the internet. What matters is 100 years of scientific research that has all pointed towards evolution. Not once has a fossil EVER been discovered that doesn't agree with evolution. Research that is so good that no one disagrees with it, except for people that are trying to push a religious agenda.

If you really believe that, why don't you just stop attacking the people and let the truth come to light?

Science moves closer to artificial life - Nation - Kentucky.com (http://www.kentucky.com/216/story/481444.html)



A fascinating article, don't you think?

All these intelligent scientists trying to design artificial life.

It is amazing to think that this was just "nature's clever trick," while never defining what nature is or how nature accomplished this.

The problem is that lifes occurrence had a laboratory the size of the entire universe and 14 billion years in order for everything to randomly come together perfectly in order to form. So even if it is extremely unlikely for it to occur it had some very extreme conditions to brute force the solution.

Imagine if you are trying to open a combination lock. Scientists are putting in numbers that are likely to be the correct combination waiting for the click and saving the right numbers as they move on to the next. The universe on the other hand has the time and equipment to randomly try every combination until it works. It got it right once in 14 billion years as far as we know, maybe in another 14 billions years the universe will give birth so some other form of life.

let the truth come to light?

Okay what is the over whelming evidence that creationism fits the facts at hand?
Where is the proof that new information can't be added by mutation? (Point to the experiment that show no new information being added)
Show proof that natural secelection can not occur?
Prove with a repeatable experiment that god exists and interacts with this world directly.
Give at least one proven case of a super natural occurrence happening.

From the article - The smallest micro-organism has 500 genes.

How many millions of base pairs to get it exactly right.

Put it in a cell

With ribosomes

With RNA

With amino acids .


Each step is a necessary ingredient.

Each ingredient takes what kind of chance to actually be formed?

In the right place,

At the right time,

Interacting with each other in precisely the right manor,

And the genetic code has to be spot on to get the right amino acids in the right sequence to form even a single protein.

Standard Biology 101 stuff;)


That is why these intelligent scientists did not know if it would take decades or centuries, to design an artificial cell. :)

HIV has just nine genes...

HIV or other viruses cannot exist as a "first" organism because without a host's nuclear machinery, they cannot reproduce.

3) The fact that thousands of scientists do not agree with you means that they must be wrong because,.... well, they disagree with you.

There are not thousands of biologists who don't believe in evolutionary biology. You might just as well argue that there are thousands of physicists who don't believe in physics. I doubt you could come up with any practicing biologists who would say that. You might find someone who pretends to have studied biology but has never published a paper in a respectable journal, or you might find a handful of biochemists. But an actual biologist who has done field work on populations of plants or animals? Probably not one.

From the article - The smallest micro-organism has 500 genes.Totally irrelevant as to the origin of the first cell. We have no idea how complicated that one was.

That first cell was most probable incredibly simple by today's standards. Nobody knows how simple it was. But remember that there were no enemies, there was ample food, and the conditions were tops for it to survive and multiply. Most probably even only by means of RNA.
Crystline clay model research indicates even that early life can have existed and multiplied on an even simpler basis than RNA, and have only later introduced RNA and later again DNA into it's multiplication sequence.

It is ridiculous after 2.500.000.000 years and trillions times trilions times trillions times trillions times trilions times trillions (etc.) of generations to refer to today's cell standards and requirements and extrapolate that back to the first cells.

===

It is logical and to be expected that in view of the time in between and the lack of fossile evidence the exact actual sequence of abiogenesis will never exceed the level of hypothesis.
But however interesting this discussion on abiogenesis is, it has nothing to do with evolution.
And it has even less to do with religion and it's creation claim. For that and everything involved no valid support has been forthcoming for over several thousands of years, other than by BELIEF.

And THAT you also know, and it is precisely the reason for your aggressive and negative approach towards evolution.

:rolleyes:

·

There are not thousands of biologists who don't believe in evolutionary biology.

Well now I don't believe that you have ever checked into this. Are you not aware of the books written by scientists in this field? Are you not aware of the thousands of scientists who have publicly come out against evolution? Are you not aware of the Discovery Institute?

Totally irrelevant as to the origin of the first cell. We have no idea[/B] how complicated that one was.

That first cell was most probable incredibly simple by today's standards. Nobody knows how simple it was. But remember that there were no enemies, there was ample food, and the conditions were tops for it to survive and multiply. Most probably even only by means of RNA.
Crystline clay model research indicates even that early life can have existed and multiplied on an even simpler basis than RNA, and have only later introduced RNA and later again DNA into it's multiplication sequence.

It is ridiculous after 2.500.000.000 years and trillions times trilions times trillions times trillions times trilions times trillions (etc.) of generations to refer to todays cell standards and requirements and extrapolate that back to the first cells.

===

It is logical and to be expected that in view of the time in between and the lack of fossile evidence the exact actual sequence of abiogenesis will never exceed the level of hypothesis.
But however interesting this discussion on abiogenesis is, it has nothing to do with evolution.
And it has even less to do with religion and it's creation claim. For that and everything involved no valid support has been forthcoming for over several thousands of years, other than by BELIEF.

And THAT you also know, and it is precisely the reason for your aggressive and negative approach towards evolution.







You start by saying nobody knows, then proceed to assume conditions at the beginning based on clay models? :confused: Talk about logic non-sequitors. ;)

Whoa, I thought evolution had all the answers? Or is that based on the "extrapolations," that you consider "ridiculous." :D


I agree with you though, it is about belief.

Okay what is the over whelming evidence that creationism fits the facts at hand?
Where is the proof that new information can't be added by mutation? (Point to the experiment that show no new information being added)
Show proof that natural secelection can not occur?
Prove with a repeatable experiment that god exists and interacts with this world directly.
Give at least one proven case of a super natural occurrence happening.

It is ridiculous after 2.500.000.000 years and trillions times trilions times trillions times trillions times trilions times trillions (etc.) of generations to refer to todays cell standards and requirements and extrapolate that back to the first cells.

Yes. It's been argued that if the first cell appeared today, it would be gobbled up by another cell or animal in seconds or minutes, having no defenses whatever against voracious modern life.

Well now I don't believe that you have ever checked into this. Are you not aware of the books written by scientists in this field? Are you not aware of the thousands of scientists who have publicly come out against evolution? Are you not aware of the Discovery Institute?

I have checked on this. There are a bare handful of creationists with any actual training and participation in biology (and I am excluding other fields, like physics and engineering, because that does not teach you biology). Behe is a biochemist. Wells was a theologian and got a PhD at Berkeley specifically in order to find information to undermine evolution--which he has stated. He got in few potshots against poorly edited textbooks, but not against evolution itself. And he has not made any interesting points in a long, long time. In any case, despite his PhD, he is certainly not a practicing biologist. Perhaps you can dig out a few more examples. But these are not biologists in the sense of people who regularly do research, get published in main stream journals (on any topic in biology, not just evolution), get tenure, and make it into prestigious scientific organizations such as the national academy of sciences.

You may plead that your guys are being discriminated against, but scientists who have been discriminated against have a rich history of finding an audience of other scientists (usually younger ones) for legitimate scientific arguments. Sooner or later someone listens and gets it. Creationists have had 150 years to persuade legitimate biologists that they have a case, with no success. You have no persuasive arguments either bolstering an alternate theory that accounts for all the evidence, nor any good arguments for why the current theory might be wrong. So far, all the arguments I've seen here in the last year have either come from ignorance or misinterpretation, at best.

Okay what is the over whelming evidence that creationism fits the facts at hand?

Have a gander at Michael Behe's latest book, "The Edge of Evolution" and then let's discuss.

I have checked on this. There are a bare handful of creationists with any actual training and participation in biology (and I am excluding other fields, like physics and engineering, because that does not teach you biology).

Odd that you limit it to creationists, but it does not matter because you have not said where you are looking, and your information is clearly in error.


Behe is a biochemist.

Do you know what biochemists do? Do you also know that he is not a creationist?


Wells was a theologian and got a PhD at Berkeley specifically in order to find information to undermine evolution--which he has stated. He got in few potshots against poorly edited textbooks, but not against evolution itself.

Who is Wells?

Yes. It's been argued that if the first cell appeared today, it would be gobbled up by another cell or animal in seconds or minutes, having no defenses whatever against voracious modern life.

It would not be the "first cell" is something else ate it.

OP maybe you can explain the following?

Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!
Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!

You argue Evolution vs. Origin... Evolution has no beginning. SO... hmm

You argue Evolution vs. Origin...Evolution has no beginning. SO......hmm

That's easy. I don't have to know where my pizza delivery guy was born or who is parents were to know that he just drove from the pizza store to my house in a Jeep Cherokee and got here at 7:13 pm.

Knowing that evolution happened doesn't depend on knowing the very first step in the process.

Saying that you have to know every single step in a process to know whether it happened would mean I can't drink my coffee because it might not exist.:)

That's easy. I don't have to know where my pizza delivery guy was born or who is parents were to know that he just drove from the pizza store to my house in a Jeep Cherokee and got here at 7:13 pm.

Knowing that evolution happened doesn't depend on knowing the very first step in the process.

Saying that you have to know every single step in a process to know whether it happened would mean I can't drink my coffee because it might not exist.:)

LOL... well keep in mind that most of the most zealous religious people would agree that micro evolution exists. But, if that was the topic we would talk about that. He wants to know how it all started, or at least that is what I get from his post. Hence my response. Thank you for the pizza analogy though. Circular arguments are tried and true evolution defense. Err...

In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality

I don't think this means what you think this mean.
The way you have it worded it would mean that if there is any evidence contrary of a theory the theory would be abandoned or changed. Which is true but it also means that all current theories have no conflicts with current evidence. Which is also true but that's the exact opposite of what you are trying to argue. Of course this quote also points out flaws in religion by impling that science changes in the face of reality(evidence) where religion regardless of reality stays the same and refuses to change even though they are clearly wrong. It's not a fundie quote in other words.

Behe is a biochemist.


Do you know what biochemists do? Do you also know that he is not a creationist?

Behe is an ID proponent. Which is soft core creationism. He even admitted in court that his work didn't work in the standard framework of science and he had to make up new rules to make his experiments work and then didn't allow the same lax rules for evolution studies and he admitted his work was religious in nature. Next...

Behe versus ribonuclease; the origin and evolution of protein-protein binding sites - The Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/behe-versus-rib.html)

I put it in my sig as a joke actually.. a weak attempt at a joke I suppose. It stems from a conversation that was months ago. So to clear up any confusion, it's a joke. Lost on most it seems. Just like the joke that is being played on people who believe in Evolution as the explanation of life. Make sure you read that very carefully, because I didn't say evolution doesn't exist. But, to use evolution as an explanation of the origins of the earth, man and all it's creatures is a flawed theory.

I'll tell you what I'll agree with all of you that say evolution is a flawed theory if you can give me on provable example of the super natural. Anything will work ghost, demons, angels, the devil, god. I'll even include bigfoot, the lochness monster and aliens that visit earth in to that group. Show just one provable instance of a supernatural occurrence and I will no long rule it out. If you can't show even on example how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

I will do the same when you can prove anything beyond micro evolution.

I have my faith, written proof in the bible. Historical events that back the time lines and subject matter. If you are so vein that you can explain away the complexity of life with something that has more holes in it then swiss cheese the so be it.

The argument was was "orgin vs. evolution"... Last I checked evolution could not explain any origin. Its not a matter of does it exists. Like I have said more then once, most educated people with religion would agree that micro evolution exists. But, nowhere can it explain the beginning. Which is the topic at hand.

For evolution to work you have to have the key components for life to have sprung out of the "primordial sludge"... Evolutionist theorize that life was brought about in a atmosphere with no oxygen. No oxygen=no life bottom line. Something had to intervene. Maybe that is all the proof you should need.

Just a question but, why do you assume I need your validation? I am the majority my friend. When you look at the polls of the people who believe in a higher power you would be the minority. That is why we don't take you seriously. No matter how hard you shake your fist when you hear the truth... just saying.

Let me leave you with,
Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!
Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!

bottom line...

I'll tell you what I'll agree with all of you that say evolution is a flawed theory if you can give me on provable example of the super natural. Anything will work ghost, demons, angels, the devil, god. I'll even include bigfoot, the lochness monster and aliens that visit earth in to that group. Show just one provable instance of a supernatural occurence and I will no long rule it out. If you can show even on example how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

What? I wouldn't agree to this. :) The reality of evolution is not dependent on the reality of big foot or flying spaghetti monsters. Anyway, if any of these things could be proved, they wouldn't be supernatural.

What's that quote? "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." And by technology, I'm here including natural technologies like DNA and flight. Anything we don't understand YET often looks supernatural or magical, until we understand it, and then all of sudden it's, "Oh, yeah. I should have thought of that. I COULD have thought of that if I'd just had a few more minutes..."

I have my faith, written proof in the bible.
Why the bible and not the Koran?

It's because your parent or someone close to you was a Christian and influenced you early in your life.

It's why Christian parents generally have Christian kids.
It's why Muslim parents generally have Muslim kids.
It's why racist parents generally have racist kids.
It's why homophobic parents generally have homophobic kids.
Spotting the pattern yet?

It's only through education and exposure to new ideas that this pattern gets broken.

Last I checked evolution could not explain any origin.

Why would you say that? Evolution explains the origin of species.

That's what it's supposed to explain. It's not about the origin of the universe, for heaven's sake. By itself, evolution is not intended to explain the origin of the first cell, although biology more generally does. If you want to believe that God created the first cell and then everything evolved from that, do so.

Evolution is about the origin of new species. As it happens, evolution also explains the origin of higher taxa--genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms, and domains. The story of evolution is written in the fossil record; each layer of sediment is like a page from a book--the story of life on Earth. The family tree can be further documented through studies of genetic relatedness. Just as we look at genes to find out who a child's father or mother is, we can figure out how related different animals and plants are to one another and use that to construct a literal family tree. (It isn't just like a family tree, it is a family tree.)

Why the bible and not the Koran?

It's because your parent or someone close to you was a Christian and influenced you early in your life.

It's why Christian parents generally have Christian kids.
It's why Muslim parents generally have Muslim kids.
It's why racist parents generally have racist kids.
It's why homophobic parents generally have homophobic kids.
Spotting the pattern yet?

It's only through education and exposure to new ideas that this pattern gets broken.

Funny then, my parents did not and do not believe in anything. I see a lot of generalizing about it.

Funny then, my parents did not and do not believe in anything. I see a lot of generalizing bout it.

You are saying the people who raised you were atheists? Who taught you about God and at what age? I'm interested...

Knowing that evolution happened doesn't depend on knowing the very first step in the process.

Evolution is much different than pizza delivery. Now, since you cannot even come up with a feasible process by which the very first step occurred consider that the whole theory falls apart with the weakest link - if any single link has no feasible way of happening, then the whole theory falls apart, because alternatives to the rest of the theory exist which can explain the first step.

So if we claim that god made the first cell but then evolution happened then you would consider evolution a complete valid theory? Odd...

So if we claim that god made the first cell but then evolution happened then you would consider evolution a complete valid theory? odd...

At least you would have tried to find a feasible answer. I would have other questions from a scientific perspective on the rest of your process, though.

Funny then, my parents did not and do not believe in anything. I see a lot of generalizing bout it.

For every rule there is an exception. You do agree though that most children follow their parents traits good or bad, right.

Evolution is much different than pizza delivery. Now, since you cannot even come up with a feasible process by which the very first step occurred consider that the whole theory falls apart with the weakest link - if any single link has no feasible way of happening, then the whole theory falls apart, because alternatives to the rest of the theory exist which can explain the first step.

And you are arguing that it's scientifically easier to account for the creation of an invisible, entirely undetectable, all powerful God than a single mushy cell?

At least you would have tried to find a feasible answer. I would have other questions from a scientific perspective on the rest of your process, though.
How is claiming god did it a feasible answer how do you prove that? I might as well said I did it.
They are trying to find a feasible answer though to where the first cell came from the reason we don't teach that though is because we don't have any good evidence for it yet. Here is one hypothesis about how life came about though and no god required.
YouTube - 3 -- The Origin of Life made easy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4)

So if we claim that god made the first cell but then evolution happened then you would consider evolution a complete valid theory? odd...

Cool!

And you are arguing that it's scientifically easier to account for the creation of an invisible, entirely undetectable, all powerful God than a single mushy cell?

There is evidence of the existence of God, so yes. Note how you and your buds are completely unable to come up with even a feasible guess of a way for the first cell to come about?

There is evidence of the existence of God, so yes. Note how you and your buds are completely unable to come up with even a feasible guess of a way for the first cell to come about?

I don't have any buds. It's a personal matter, but I don't reproduce asexually. Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone else you know? Anyway, there's lots of stuff on biogenesis, as I suspect you know. You are using a well known argument technique called diversion; if you can't win a point in an argument, you change the subject. The fact remains that no one needs to prove exactly how the first cells came into existence in order to know that dinosaurs once walked the face of the Earth.

I'm off to dinner.
Cheers,
Asking

There is evidence of the existence of God, so yes. Note how you and your buds are completely unable to come up with even a feasible guess of a way for the first cell to come about?

Did you watch the video?

Did you watch the video?

Yes, and it is hard to believe that you seriously intended this as a defence. It was so full, of assumptions and strawman arguments. Very few if any of the statements made in that video are claims made by those opposed to evolution, and the few that are have twisted the statements to make them easier to defend.

I have not yet questioned whether some of the chemicals could exist in nature. I asked how the first living cell came to be.

A question that remains unaddressed.

I don't have any buds. It's a personal matter, but I don't reproduce asexually. Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone else you know? Anyway, there's lots of stuff on biogenesis, as I suspect you know. You are using a well known argument technique called diversion; if you can't win a point in an argument, you change the subject.

I have been on this point, the same point since I came into this thread. A point that was being discussed prior to my arrival.

Instead of attacking me for sticking to a point that so far has not been addressed by your side, why not just be forthright and admit that there is no answer.

We have been saying we don't have a solid answer on how the first cell came about for 3 pages now. What we are saying is that the theory of evolution doesn't deal with that portion of biology. You keep maintaining that if a theory doesn't explain everything that lead up to what the theory explains you can't have a good theory. Which means since we haven't figured out the beginning of the universe yet. We can't teach children any science theories what so ever.

You are pushing an agenda you don't care about science you only care about pushing your religion on other peoples children.

We have been saying we don't have a solid answer on how the first cell came about for 3 pages now. What we are saying is that the theory of evolution doesn't deal with that portion of biology. You keep maintaining that if a theory doesn't explain everything that lead up to what the theory explains you can't have a good theory. Which means since we haven't figured out the beginning of the universe yet. We can't teach children any science theories what so ever.

You are pushing an agenda you don't care about science you only care about pushing your religion on other peoples children.

Yeah.

I have nothing to add to this. But this captures my sense of where this has been going.

There is evidence of the existence of God, so yes.
Than what is that evidence of the existence of god than? I have never seen any Objective Supported Evidence towards that claim. Neither have you ever provided any Objective Supported Evidence towards that claim. So please provide that Objective Supported Evidence towards the existence of god at last...

All you so far have done on WeTellYou, Answerway, or AMHD is making empty unsupported claims!

As soon as YOU provide that Objective Supported Evidence towards the existence of god, it is not more than fair for those who are called here "evolutionists" to expand their support for their views.

But I won't hold my breath, as I already know your answer...

:rolleyes:

·

We have been saying we don't have a solid answer on how the first cell came about for 3 pages now. What we are saying is that the theory of evolution doesn't deal with that portion of biology. You keep maintaining that if a theory doesn't explain everything that lead up to what the theory explains you can't have a good theory. Which means since we haven't figured out the beginning of the universe yet. We can't teach children any science theories what so ever.

You are pushing an agenda you don't care about science you only care about pushing your religion on other peoples children.

Michaelb,

For a person who so far has simply attacked those who disagree and has failed to deal with the science, I find you reference to science humourous. Heck you even attacked me for having a scientific background!

And I note that you twisted once again what I said. I never said anything about the need to have a "solid" answers regarding the first cell. I stated that if you cannot even come up with a feasible guess, then you also don't have a feasible theory. I never said that the theory must "explain everything". Please stop mis-representing me.

The truth is that the theory of evolution has no answer for the first cell.

If you have no feasible explanation for the first cell, just concede that point.

Than what is that evidence of the existence of god than? I have never seen any Objective Supported Evidence towards that claim.

John, if you knew how good of a laugh you gave me with that. It's get funnier the more than make that claim. I just cannot imagine why anyone would want to deny that they have not seen something which they have seen so ogften unless it is that they studiously want to avoid it.

I presume that bringing it up once again here is to help your friends by distracting from the problems with the theory of evolution.

To Michaelb .... I stated that if you cannot even come up with a feasible guess, then you also don't have a feasible theory.
Total nonsense, Tom Smith!

You can be an expert builder without ever knowing how a brick is constructed. As long as you know how to lay bricks properly.

You can be an expert electrician without ever knowing what an electron actually is, or how it is constructed inside (if it has an inside). As long as you know what you can do and not do with that electron.

You can be an expert in evolution without knowing how that first cell developed. And the Evolution Theory is a valid scientific theory without the need for inclusion of how that first cell came into being. Evolution is about CHANGE from the first cell to the next cell(s) and lifeforms. How that first cell developed is for sure interesting to find out, but t is not relevant to the Evolution Theory itself.

And you can be an expert in religion without ever supporting your BELIEFS with any format of OSE.
But what you can not support without BELIEF are your religious ideas themselves.
All you can (and you did) is boasting that you can prove the existence of God, but if called to supply that proof you have to sidestep, and backup with steer waste and little lies.


John, if you knew how good of a laugh you gave me with that. It's get funnier the more than make that claim. I just cannot imagine why anyone would want to deny that they have not seen something which they have seen so ogften unless it is that they studiously want to avoid it. I presume that bringing it up once again here is to help your friends by distracting from the problems with the theory of evolution.
That's what I expected you to post. Babble, but no Objective Supported Evidence towards the existence of god. Because your misplaced haughty ego withholds you from admitting that there is no such Objective Supported Evidence, although you promised to supply that, and lied about having ever supplied that...

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

Total nonsense, Tom Smith!
You can be an expert builder without ever knowing how a brick is constructed. As long as you know how to lay bricks properly.

You can be an expert electrician without ever knowing what an electron actually is, or how it is constructed inside (if it has an inside). As long as you know what you can do and not do with that electron.


Being a tradesperson has no co-relation to studying the theory of evolution. Even in science, a person does not need to know all aspects of an area to study it, but that does not deny the need for those other aspects of the topic to be known.

Rather than trying to find ways of avoiding the issue, why not simply admit what is abundantly obvious - there is no answer to the question that I have asked.

Rather than trying to find ways of avoiding the issue, why not simply admit what is abundantly obvious - there is no answer to the question that I have asked.
Funny ! That is just the thought I had about your evasive reply regarding your statements on the OSE for the existence of god.
Why don't YOU simply admit that you can't supply that?

:D

·

Funny ! That is just the thought I had about your evasive reply regarding your statements on the OSE for the existence of god.
Why don't YOU simply admit that you can't supply that?

:D

·

John,

I got a laugh when I first saw your tagline ""Credendovidis" translates into "I believe it as soon as I see it !"", because every time that I posted something in the past which disagreed with what you wanted to believe, you did one of two things - claim that you did not see it, or go after me. Now have a look at all your posts in this thread. :D No matter how many times something was posted, one of your first responses was to claim to not see it.

Why should I waste my time when you will simply deny that you see it. Why do you try to distract from the question at hand?

I think that we know.

Now we are discussing the scientific basis for evolution, and I am sticking to the science of the issue - staying on the topic.

Tom

For a person who so far has simply attacked those who disagree and has failed to deal with the science, i find you reference to science humourous. heck you even attacked me for having a scientific background!


I pointed out that you saying you have scientific background adds nothing to the debate.

Maybe if you would present some evidence to support your outlandish theories maybe I'd have something else to discuss.

I pointed out that you saying you have scientific background adds nothing to the debate.

It is fascinating. First you complained that I would be mis-leading "young educated people", and then when I point out that I have scientific education, you attack me for saying that, claiming that scientific education adds nothing.

Fascinating.


Maybe if you would present some evidence to support your outlandish theories maybe I'd have something else to discuss.

You keep accusing me of using religion against science (which I have not yet done), but rather I am sticking strictly with science.

My outlandish theories? I am looking for the mounds of evidence that your side claims for evolution. So far on the first stage of the creation process, we have come up with not so much as a feasible guess, let alone any evidence.

Now, instead of constantly trying to make demeaning comments about me, why don't you defend your theory using science? Or is that harder than attacking your opponent?

Do you actually feel that there is a scientific basis for your theory of evolution? If so, then why won't you stand and defend it on the basis of the scientific evidence?

The problem is that you don't look at the evidence presented so it doesn't matter what I post. There will never be enough evidence for evolution for your standards. Like I said if you would put half of the standards for truth that you apply to evolution towards your own religion we wouldn't be having this debate.

There will never be enough evidence for evolution for your standards.

I think this goes both ways.. just saying.

Btw- I have opted to stay on the sidelines of this circular argument until some real headway is made towards the topic.

The problem is that you don't look at the evidence presented so it doesn't matter what I post.

I do. Post some and let's look at it.


There will never be enough evidence for evolution for your standards.

That is quite a concession on your part.


Like I said if you would put half of the standards for truth that you apply to evolution towards your own religion we wouldn't be having this debate.

I have.

Okay, so it appears that the evolutionists are conceding (passively or actively) that there is no evidence for life having come from non-living substance, and it appears that the evolutionists do not even have a feasible guess as to how this occurred. Some evolutionists say that they don't even want to deal with this as part of evolution. I can understand why they prefer not to deal with it.

So step one in evolution goes down in flames.

Okay guys, let's move on to step 2. Since you want to start with life having already existed, this should be much easier for you.

Question 2: Describe this first living cell.

Okay, so it appears that the evolutionists are conceding (passively or actively) that there is no evidence for life having come from non-living substance, and it appears that the evolutionists do not even have a feasible guess as to how this occurred. Some evolutionists say that they don't even want to deal with this as part of evolution. I can understand why they prefer not to deal with it.

So step one in evolution goes down in flames.


I think that refusing to acknowledge that you've lost an argument doesn't make you the winner. If you want to read about biogenesis, go ahead. We aren't defeated, just bored.

So far, no one has directly asked you to provide definitive proof for and a plausible mechanism for God creating the universe, or Godogenesis, for that matter. How can you use God as an explanation for the creation of life if you don't know where God came from? If you want to present that, I'll return the favor with a summary of the main ideas of biogenesis (which I haven't wanted to do because that's very much a busman's holiday for me). You definitely go first on this one, though. So how did God come into existence? How did God create the universe? How did God create life? I want to see detailed plausible mechanisms and proof.

I think that refusing to acknowledge that you've lost an argument doesn't make you the winner. If you want to read about biogenesis, go ahead. We aren't defeated, just bored.

I have been asking for days how non-living subsatnces can become the first living cell, and no one has come forward with anything but personal attacks and claims that this is not covered by the theory of evolution. Watching silence on the part of most and the rest running from the question, it seemed useless to continue to ask, and under those circumstances, in the complete absences of anyone even having a guess, it seems appropriate to assume no one had an answer.

If you think that you have a feasible argument, then by all means spout forth. Don't claim victory by sitting back in the shadows and not coming forward when asked to do so. Why you chose to wait until after I started to go on to the next stage is beyond me, but I am willing to step back and listen to your theory.

Now, take the podium and let's hear your theory.

As for your questions about God, to avoid folks claiming that I am pushing religion, I plan to stay focused, at least in this thread, on the scientific evidence for evolution. If you want to discuss God, please start a new thread.

I think this goes both ways..just saying.

Absolutely not if you can make a prediction based on your religion and they come true every time I would be very likely to believe it.
The other difference is that if there was evidence that contradicted evolution, I'd drop the evolution theory just as your signature says I would.

I have been asking for days how non-living subsatnces can become the first living cell, and no one has come forward with anything but personal attacks and claims that this is not covered by the theory of evolution. Watching silence on the part of most and the rest running from the question, it seemed useless to continue to ask, and under those circumstances, in the complete absences of anyone even having a guess, it seems appropriate to assume no one had an answer.


The difference between us that you're not noticing is that we are more than willing to admit we don't know something. We might have ideas on how something happened but we aren't sure. The fact that we aren't sure and not a single one of us is willing to claim that we are sure on this is fairly amazing. That we fight for evolution so adamantly but when it comes down to where the first cell comes from we concede that we don't know. This in itself should show you something about the character of the people you are debating. The reason we fight for evolution is because it exists and it would be a terrible shame to give up on knowledge that has served us so well over the last 150 years.

The difference betwen us that your not noticing is that we are more than willing to admit we don't know something, we might have ideas on how something happened but we aren't sure.

Then why don't you simply admit that you have no idea how life started and how the first living cell came about?

Are you even reading what we type?

Are you even reading what we type?

Yep - are you?

As for your questions about God, to avoid folks claiming that I am pushing religion, I plan to stay focused, at least in this thread, on the scientific evidence for evolution. If you want to discuss God, please start a new thread.

Tj, You've made it clear that your alternate hypothesis to evolution IS God. (And I hasten to acknowledge that not everyone sees those as mutually exclusive by any means, as you appear to.)

If we are really talking Science, then your hypothesis, God, needs to be tested like any other hypothesis. God can't be put forward as a scientific hypothesis and then excused from the same rules of objective evidence on the grounds that it makes you uncomfortable. If you want to have a scientific discussion, present an alternate theory that is a legitimate and testable natural explanation.

Biogenesis and, separately, evolution are science. We don't need to prove this here because it's incontestable if you've even glanced at a university curriculum lately or picked up any sort of scientific journal that even touches on biology. Look in the Encyclopedia Britannica... You don't have any power to change that. No scientist, biologist or otherwise, would take "God did it" as a scientific explanation of anything. Religion by any name is not science.

Tj, You've made it clear that your alternate hypothesis to evolution IS God. (And I hasten to acknowledge that not everyone sees those as mutually exclusive by any means, as you appear to.)


Note that so far, it is only your side that has brought religion into this discussion. I, on the other had, see no contradiction between science and God, and am quite prepared to evaluate evolution based upon science. Why aren't you?

Biogenesis and, separately, evolution are science. We don't need to prove this here because it's incontestable if you've even glanced at a university curriculum lately or picked up any sort of scientific journal that even touches on biology. Look in the Encyclopedia Britannica...

In-contestable? Nothing in science is in-contestable. Once you call it incontestable, you have turned it into a religion because, even a "law" in science (which evolution is most assuredly NOT), can be challenged if new evidence arises.

If you are saying that it is "in-contestable", then clearly you are not open to looking at the scientific evidence.

Interesting, eh? Here I am a believer in God, and I want to examine the scientific merits of evolution, and you who are opposing creationism, and you are now saying that we cannot question it.

Funny ! That is just the thought I had about your evasive reply regarding your statements on the OSE for the existence of god.
Why don't YOU simply admit that you can't supply that?
John, I got a laugh when I first saw your tagline ""Credendovidis" translates into "I believe it as soon as I see it !"", because every time that I posted something in the past which disagreed with what you wanted to believe, you did one of two things - claim that you did not see it, or go after me. Now have a look at all your posts in this thread. :D No matter how many times something was posted, one of your first responses was to claim to not see it. Why should I waste my time when you will simply deny that you see it. Why do you try to distract from the question at hand? I think that we know. Now we are discussing the scientific basis for evolution, and I am sticking to the science of the issue - staying on the topic. Tom
"Why should I waste my time when you will simply deny that you see it ???"

The reason for this evasive reply is rather simple : it has nothing to do with how I will react on real OSE.

The real reason is that YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN NOT REPLY TO MY QUESTION BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT PROVIDE THE BY YOU CLAIMED AVAILABLE OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD !!! .

We all know that you can not provide that. You are the ONLY ONE here who denies that. How sad!!

Thanks Tom for another proof of your unreliability and hypocrisy !

:rolleyes: ;) :p ;) :rolleyes:

"Why should I waste my time when you will simply deny that you see it ???"

The reason for this evasive reply is rather simple : it has nothing to do with how I will react on real OSE.

The real reason is that YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN NOT REPLY TO MY QUESTION BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT PROVIDE THE BY YOU CLAIMED AVAILABLE OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD !!! .

John, everyone can see your behaviour. If you were sincerely interested, you would have already responded to my postings.

John, everyone can see your behaviour. If you were sincerely interested, you would have already responded to my postings.
Tom, everyone can see YOUR behavior. If you were sincere in having that OSE , you would have posted it on all Internet boards !

:D :rolleyes: :p :rolleyes: :D

·

Tom, everyone can see YOUR behavior. If you were sincere in having that OSE , you would have posted it on all Internet boards !

:D :rolleyes: :p :rolleyes: :D

·

John, I do not go out and spam boards. Perhaps you do, but I do not.

I do note that you are choosing not to engage the scientific questions that I am raising with respect to evolution.

John, I do not go out and spam boards. Perhaps you do, but I do not.
No Tom, neither do I, though you like to suggest that time and time again...
Almost as it you have no other - valid - arguments to support your own ideas.


I do note that you are choosing not to engage the scientific questions that I am raising with respect to evolution.
Indeed I don't. Because in many ways you are not worth a reply to that, in view of your own negative and hypocrite approach and attitude. Unlike most people who support the Evolution Theory, and who are all able to admit that the theory is not 100% covered by OSE (but in general is valid), you can not even admit that your insistence to have OSE for god's existence was more wish than reality, you have to hide behind all kinds of steer produce to sidestep your own promise to post that OSE for everyone to see. Simply because no such OSE for god's existence exists.

Evolution is real, Tom, if you like it or not.
But god's existence is a religious claim, until it is supported with OSE.

:rolleyes:

·

No Tom, neither do I, though you like to suggest that time and time again...

I have seen otherwise,


Indeed I don't. Because in many ways you are not worth a reply to that, in view of your own negative and hypocrite approach and attitude. Unlike most people who support the Evolution Theory, and who are all able to admit that the theory is not 100% covered by OSE (but in general is valid), you can not even admit that your insistence to have OSE for god's existence was more wish than reality, you have to hide behind all kinds of steer produce to sidestep your own promise to post that OSE for everyone to see. Simply because no such OSE for god's existence exists.

John, I stated up front that I am prepared to use science alone to evaluate evolution. If you are unable to tolerate that approach, then that is fine.

So far you have yet to post anything but personal attacks in any case.

I have seen otherwise,

So far you have yet to post anything but personal attacks in any case.

EXACTLY WHY YOU SEE I DROPPED OUT OF THIS MYSELF!

I have seen otherwise,
And I have seen you suggesting that same misrepresentation of reality time and time again...


... So far you have yet to post anything but personal attacks in any case.
No personal attacks, Tom. I just will remind you again and again of your own uninvited promise to supply OSE for the existence of god. I never asked you for that till you offered to do so yourself, and than failed to post that OSE ever since. All you ever posted was a lame list of subjective arguments, but no OSE.

Till you do you are not worth the effort of any reply or reaction, other than to remind you of your promise to post OSE for god's existence, or post your statement that you can not supply such OSE. It is up to you Tom. Don't blame me for your own insincerity and hypocrisy.

:rolleyes:

·

And I have seen you suggesting that same misrepresentation of reality time and time again...


Well, if you deny it, that tells me more about you as a person.


No personal attacks, Tom. I just will remind you again and again of your own uninvited promise to supply OSE for the existence of god.

As I did.

Now, if you want to join the discussion, then do so, if not then please note that you are off topic.

EXACTLY WHY YOU SEE I DROPPED OUT OF THIS MYSELF!

I understand very well.

It is interesting that it is nigh on impossible to get evolutionists to discuss the scientific basis for evolution. Quite telling actually.

Going to cut in here. I admit I don't know allot about science, nope, not my subject at all.

As a believer in God I can honeslty say that I also believe in Evolution. There's too much proof of Evolution, and though I hate to admit it, none if any that God actually created the earth, other than what's written in the bible.

My belief, that both Science and God had a hand in creating the earth, but that's just my belief, don't ask me to back it up, I can't.

I believe God 'used' what we call science to create the universe. While I believe the Bible basically I also think Christians take a good bit of it out of context yet at the same time science IS in the Bible. I do not believe in evolution from a single cell etc...

Gonna cut in here. I admit I don't know allot about science, nope, not my subject at all.

As a believer in God I can honeslty say that I also believe in Evolution. There's too much proof of Evolution, and though I hate to admit it, none if any that God actually created the earth, other than what's written in the bible.

My belief, that both Science and God had a hand in creating the earth, but that's just my belief, don't ask me to back it up, I can't.

I used to be an evolutionist because I believed, as some of the folk on here do, that the scientific evidence was un-deniable. That was before I took the time to examine it in detail. Once I did, I was shocked at what the evidence actually indicated. Too often book and displays intended for the non-scientific community are not presenting scientific evidence, but rather the interpretation of one or more persons without stating the numerous assumptions that have gone into that interpretation.

The problem with that is that when it is presented as fact, most people believe that what they are reading is in fact proven by the evidence, when in fact many of the most critical details have in fact no evidence whatsoever to validate them.

The reason that I started looking into this topic in more detail at the time was to be better prepared to defend evolution when debating the issue with fellow Christians who opposed evolution. What I found went in a much different direction than I anticipated, and I believe that it is important to follow truth, even when it heads in directions that are contrary to whgat you currently believe.

I believe God 'used' what we call science to create the universe. While I believe the Bible basically I also think Christians take a good bit of it out of context yet at the same time science IS in the Bible. I do not believe in evolution from a single cell etc.....

I am amazed at how well science and the Bible agree.

I am amazed at how well science and the Bible agree.

Yep

Science and the Bible (http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml)

And Maury 'discovered' underwater sea currents BY reading the verse in Psalms

Now, if you want to join the discussion, then do so, if not then please note that you are off topic.Not off topic at all. Tom : my posts are about YOUR OWN unwillingness to supply evidence for God's existence based on arguments referring to evolution and religion. So on topic in "Evolution" (or "Origin of the Universe") and religion.

See your own post on SUPPOSED OSE for God's existence here ! (LINK) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/objective-supporting-evidence-gods-existence-247250.html)

:rolleyes:

·

Not off topic at all. Tom : my posts are about YOUR OWN unwillingness to supply evidence for God's existence based on arguments referring to evolution and religion. So on topic in "Evolution" (or "Origin of the Universe") and religion.

See your own post on SUPPOSED OSE for God's existence here ! (LINK) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/objective-supporting-evidence-gods-existence-247250.html)

:rolleyes:

·

So you have found one of my posts (no doubt you have done some edits), so when you said that you did not see my posts, you were not being honest!

Perhaps you should try answering some of the questions. If you remember, before we started the discussion, we all agreed that there were two options, either creation was by God or by natural causes (no doubt you will deny that now :D ), so now you have absolutely no reason or excuse for refusing to provide answers (as you have in the past).

I look forward to your answers!

So you have found one of my posts (no doubt you have done some edits), so when you said that you did not see my posts, you were not being honest!
Not true Tom. As usual you are twisting the truth . I took me a lot of time finding your posts on Answerway. All I did was retrieving and reposting it here. I did not do any editing other than deleting some misspelling and references to others on Answerway.
Once again you show with such statements your own approach and subsequent mistrust for others who however do not cheat .
You are just measuring my corn with your bushel...


... If you remember, before we started the discussion, we all agreed that there were two options...
No Tom : you decided yourself that that was so. Why would I and others agree with your logical fallacy ?


... either creation was by God or by natural causes
There is no reason for (religious) creation Tom. Creation is not more than a religious claim.


... so now you have absolutely no reason or excuse for refusing to provide answers (as you have in the past).
But I have provided answers to every point you made, Tom. Several times in fact. And every time (at least 10) all you did was reposting "Blindness is no excuse" and a repeat of your list.

:rolleyes:

·

Not true Tom. As usual you are twisting the truth .

John, I wonder sometimes if you remember what the truth really is.


No Tom : you decided yourself that that was so. Why would I and others agree with your logical fallacy ?

John, you'd argue to the death to avoid appearing to be wrong no matter what. As you see by other comments on here, people know you and how you behave.


But I have provided answers to every point you made, Tom. Several times in fact. And every time (at least 10) all you did was reposting "Blindness is no excuse" and a repeat of your list.

Good, then if you have answers you should have no problem posting them as well. I look forward to seeing them!

Now that you have another thread for that topic, let's keep this one on topic moving forward shall we, and we can keep the discussion of those other questions on that thread.

Okay, not that we hopefully have the distraction out of the way, let's get back to the topic at hand.

So far I have not seen anyone post a feasible manner by which life comes from non-living substances, and some folk are even saying that they don't want to deal with this as part of the theory of evolution (even though it is critical).

So we will move on from Question 1 and just leave it that evolutionists have no answer.

Okay guys, let's move on to step 2. Since you want to start with life having already existed, this should be much easier for you.

Question 2: Describe this first living cell.

Hmmm maybe he answered that?

What I want to know is how the first living cell evolved and
How humans developed/evolved

Reply #3 never really did state any more than cell structure in the reply though.

John, I wonder sometimes if you remember what the truth really is.
A good guideline to what you call the "truth" is to start with doubting whatever you state to be the "truth"...


John, you'd argue to the death to avoid appearing to be wrong no matter what. As you see by other comments on here, people know you and how you behave.
All I have is a clear opinion. An opinion you disagree with. The difference between us is that I clearly state and reason my views, while you focus on innuendo and posting "misrepresentations of reality", Tom.


Now that you have another thread for that topic, let's keep this one on topic moving forward shall we, and we can keep the discussion of those other questions on that thread.
This topic is about "Evolution" or "Origin of the Universe" and religion. So far you yourself have pushed it completely into the evolution corner.

Your list is about "Evolution" in your religious support of OSE for god's existence. So it can be discussed here just as well. It is completely on topic here !

:rolleyes:

·

A good guideline to what you call the "truth" is to start with doubting whatever you state to be the "truth"....

John I am not interested in your continued abuse of this thread and its users.

hmmm maybe he answered that?

What I want to know is how the first living cell evolved and
how humans developed/evolved

reply #3 never really did state any more than cell structure in the reply though.

I have a much more detailed drawing of what a cell is like. It appears no one on here can provide a feasible guess as to how non-living substances became living.

Now if this diagram is what John thinks that the first cell looked like, that is an immense leap from a bunch of chemicals to a very organized structure.

I am trying to go through this a step at a time to see which steps these experts in evolution on here can provide feaible explanations for.

John I am not interested in your continued abuse of this thread and its users.
So I am in YOUR continued abuse of this thread and its users.

:rolleyes:

·

I have a much more detailed drawing of what a cell is like. It appears no one on here can provide a feasible guess as to how non-living substances became living.

Now if this diagram is what John thinks that the first cell looked like, that is an immense leap from a bunch of chemicals to a very organized structure.

I am trying to go through this a step at a time to see which steps these experts in evolution on here can provide feaible explanations for.

Let's see if John can explain how non-living substances turned into a living single cell.

Let's see if John can explain how non-living substances turned into a living single cell.
I'll see to that tomorrow. I'm now off to horizontal mode for a couple of hours...

:D

·

Now if this diagram is what John thinks that the first cell looked like, that is an immense leap from a bunch of chemicals to a very organized structure.


EXACTLY! I agree and it seems like an immense leap of faith to believe in a bunch of chemicals to a very organized structure. I also have yet to see Cred0 answer and as you can see we are all the way up to reply #200 and still haven't gotten an answer when Cred0's Original post topic clearly states all you have to do is ask.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I also have yet to see Cred0 answer and as you can see we are all the way up to reply #200 and still haven't gotten an answer when Cred0's Original post topic clearly states all you have to do is ask.
The original questions in topic "Evolution" or "Origin of the Universe" and religion were :

"If people like Nohelp4u want to know more about evolution , why don't they ask for that?
And if people like Nohelp4u want to know more about the origin of the universe, why don't they ask for that?
Why always ask indirect questions, and combine that with a religious connotation like the "belief" argument ?"

All these 200 posts have not shown any requests to really advance people's knowledge on evolution or the origin of the universe. Almost every comment , line, and word posted in this topic by either "N0help4u" and "Tj3" was targeted at proving that evolution is wrong.
Why would I waste time and energy to address posts by closed-minded people who focus on all kinds of off-topic points to try to misuse this topic for their own pro-creation purposes (i.e. who include that same religious connotation like the "belief" argument again here)?

That stated :

I remain prepared to answer any SERIOUS question of real interest in either "evolution" or "the origin of the universe".

:rolleyes:

·

The reason no one is answering you TJ3 is because you have demonstrated that you don't care what the evidence is. You have the attitude that you are smarter than the majority of scientists yet you have no formal training in biology and without providing any evidence of your claims. We aren't going to prove evolution to you no matter what evidence we provide. Thankfully you don't have the monopoly on what is taught and your ideas will go the way of the religious flat earth ideas before it.

And before you get on me about not want to hear other ideas. I don't if they aren't useful. You can preach that 1+1=3 because god says so, but without proof your just wasting everyone's time.

The original questions in topic "Evolution" or "Origin of the Universe" and religion were :

"If people like Nohelp4u want to know more about evolution , why don't they ask for that?
And if people like Nohelp4u want to know more about the origin of the universe, why don't they ask for that?
Why always ask indirect questions, and combine that with a religious connotation like the "belief" argument ?"

All these 200 posts have not shown any requests to really advance people's knowledge on evolution or the origin of the universe. Almost every comment , line, and word posted in this topic by either "N0help4u" and "Tj3" was targeted at proving that evolution is wrong.
Why would I waste time and energy to address posts by closed-minded people who focus on all kinds of off-topic points to try to misuse this topic for their own pro-creation purposes (i.e. who include that same religious connotation like the "belief" argument again here)?

That stated :

I remain prepared to answer any SERIOUS question of real interest in either "evolution" or "the origin of the universe".

:rolleyes:

·


Like I said you opened the post by stating if I (anyone) wants to know all they have to do is ask so I asked and all you have done since then is give one flimsy answer about one cell not backed up and then attack me and Tom.
So don't sound like innocent victim since you do not want to tell us what you accept as the origins of man's evolution when that was supposedly the intent of your post but apparently the intent of your post. Your out is now you claim serious inquiries only.

The reason no one is answering you TJ3 is because you have demonstrated that you don't care what the evidence is. You have the attitude that you are smarter than the majority of scientists yet you have no formal training in biology and without providing any evidence of your claims.

Let's see - you judge my motives, and you falsely claim that I have no formal training in biology (without even asking me).

Then you tell that you think that asking questions of you to validate your claims is wrong.

Boggles the mind.

Maybe before you start attacking folks (which BTW is all you have done on here), you should consider asking some questions first.

Then you tell that you think that asking questions of you to validate your claims is wrong
But you do not find it unreasonable to misrepresent reality and post phony claims?
Or that repeatedly requesting you to honor your own uninvited promise to provide OSE for god's existence can be sidestepped with loads of steer manure and misrepresentation, without any negative consequences for your reliability and honesty ?

Get real Tom !

:rolleyes:

·

This comment sums up the WHOLE thread:

All these 200 posts have not shown any requests to really advance people's knowledge on evolution or the origin of the universe. Almost every comment , line, and word posted in this topic by either "N0help4u" and "Tj3" was targeted at proving that evolution is wrong.
Why would I waste time and energy to address posts by closed-minded people who focus on all kinds of off-topic points to try to misuse this topic for their own pro-creation purposes (i.e. who include that same religious connotation like the "belief" argument again here)?

If threads of this nature are simply going to be opened to attack others beliefs then serious action WILL be taken.

>Thread Closed<