It would not be the "first cell" is something else ate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
|
It would not be the "first cell" is something else ate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoked
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
I don't think this means what you think this mean.Quote:
In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality
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 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...Quote:
Behe is a biochemist.
Do you know what biochemists do? Do you also know that he is not a creationist?
Behe versus ribonuclease; the origin and evolution of protein-protein binding sites - The Panda's Thumb
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
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..."
Why the bible and not the Koran?Quote:
I have my faith, written proof in the bible.
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.
Why would you say that? Evolution explains the origin of species.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoked
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.)
Funny then, my parents did not and do not believe in anything. I see a lot of generalizing about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
You are saying the people who raised you were atheists? Who taught you about God and at what age? I'm interested...Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoked
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
For every rule there is an exception. You do agree though that most children follow their parents traits good or bad, right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoked
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
How is claiming god did it a feasible answer how do you prove that? I might as well said I did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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
Cool!Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I'm off to dinner.
Cheers,
Asking
Did you watch the video?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
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 have been on this point, the same point since I came into this thread. A point that was being discussed prior to my arrival.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
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.
Yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
I have nothing to add to this. But this captures my sense of where this has been going.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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:
·
Michaelb,Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I presume that bringing it up once again here is to help your friends by distracting from the problems with the theory of evolution.
Total nonsense, Tom Smith!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D
·
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Why don't YOU simply admit that you can't supply that?
:D
·
John,Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
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
I pointed out that you saying you have scientific background adds nothing to the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Maybe if you would present some evidence to support your outlandish theories maybe I'd have something else to discuss.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Fascinating.
You keep accusing me of using religion against science (which I have not yet done), but rather I am sticking strictly with science.Quote:
Maybe if you would present some evidence to support your outlandish theories maybe I'd have something else to discuss.
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.
I think this goes both ways.. just saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Btw- I have opted to stay on the sidelines of this circular argument until some real headway is made towards the topic.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:33 PM. |