 |
Not at all. There is "NOTHING" missing from evolution (if you mean with "nothing" abiogenesis). Evolution starts with the first living cell.Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain_man
Is this all new to you ? Are you all alone on that mountain, perhaps?
:D
·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain_man
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
So, no, one can not reconcile scripture with evolution. Scripture does agree with the scientific evidence, though.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Of course if I really would have claimed that, would I have used the derogatory creationists' term "pond scum".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No of course ! Shows you that you simply can't trust Tom Smith...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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:
·
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
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.Quote:
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...
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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
·
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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 .
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.
What a scientific cop out :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
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."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
That argument seems invalid for electronic engineers : just count me out !Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
:D
·
Don't worry, I said nothing about you, just about the majority of scientifically qualified people who believe in intelligent design :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Originally Posted by Credendovidis :Quote:
Not at all. There is "NOTHING" missing from evolution (if you mean with "nothing" abiogenesis). Evolution starts with the first living cell.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
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
·
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:32 PM. |