Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Look, dude, I gave you the link. Stop lying. And if you don't think it is an impossible long shot then you're not playing with a full deck.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Challenge To All Creationists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Look, dude, I gave you the link. Stop lying. And if you don't think it is an impossible long shot then you're not playing with a full deck.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
You're playing stupid. We both know why you're arguing the stance you're arguing. Tobad it is a losing argument.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
If you keep on playing stupid I'll just chalk you up as a troll and put you on my Ignore list.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
That's probably in your best interest, especially if you don't like being held accountable for statements that you've made...
Your assumption isn't necessarily incorrect - but he's never openly made it. So the burden is still on you. You've claimed that all of Evolution is wrong, as well as any claims of origin, because we don't fully understand Abiogenesis. Great. The problem, however, is that 100% of Evolutionary Theory can still be accurate without any reference to Abiogenesis whatsoever. This is why they are two separate fields of study, just as Messy claimed.
It's odd to me that you stand proud in the knowledge that we can't fully explain Abiogenesis, as if that somehow validates your current theological and Biblical position... What evidence have you presented in this conversation to support your side of the argument? If we are wrong about naturalistic means because we don't have ALL of the answers, doesn't that equally (and more catastrophically) critique your claim that an all-powerful, timeless, more complex being than the Universe somehow created the Universe and everything in it? Using your own logic here, how can you boast about something that's much less likely to have occurred?
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Sure it can. If you allow for a Creator... otherwise you've got to have some form of abiogenesis take place for evolution to happen. Sorry, but that's a Catch-22 I won't let you out of.
So if you are a diehard atheist you've got to accept the impossibility of life from non-life at some point in time. It's just that simple. And good luck with that, it requires more faith than any religion I've ever heard of.
(The rest of your post was ignored on purpose, by the way.)
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
What you're calling an impossibility has already been mostly figured out. All of the building blocks necessary for complex life to exist have been "created" out of purely abiotic processes. The abundance of such organic material that has been either observed or captured from off-planet sources attests to the validity of what has been studied in labs. I'm not really sure why you're certain that it cannot happen, other than your theological reliance on it being an impossibility.
http://www.biology-pages.info/A/AbioticSynthesis.html
http://study.com/academy/lesson/abiogenesis-definition-theory-evidence.html
http://scitechdaily.com/new-evidence-on-the-origins-of-life-on-earth/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment
https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150730172518.htm
I'm aware. It's because you have no defense for it.
Your god is currently a god of the gaps. It's not a position that you should be so confident about. It's very pigeon-holed god that you've created. You need to spend more time thinking about it.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Your transference is showing.
I seriously doubt you even have a clue as to why I am posting in this thread.
I bet you have all manner of strawmen to beat up on over it though.
So far all you have is parroted bold empty math claims.
Not making much head way winning anything other than choir members.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You should have read it yourself...
I'm Not.
You have not presented the math.
Your link does not present the math.
Where is this alleged lie?
You have not shown, or linked to, it being impossible.
You parroted bold empty math claims and it seems you are all butt hurt over it being pointed out.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
YOU are the one playing stupid.
Of course, that is assuming you are "playing"?
You do have the option of not replying to my pointing out your bold empty claims.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Very well. Consider yourself ignored.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
What are the necessary building blocks of life, in your opinion?
What caused the law of genetics to changed? Time certainly can't do that. It is a necessary invention of evolutionists. Different varieties of dogs mate all the tgime. The Pomeranian and the mastiff can't mate because of size, not genetics.
Give me the science that says it can go farther.
It surprise me that intelligent people are willing to accept something that is supposed to based on scienece but never have any evidence to support the guesses.
His claims are bold but not empty. The claims that evolution is a fact is empty because you can't provide the evidence for 1 thing science has proved in the ToE.
I use to think believing a nose could evolve int oa blowhole was funny. Now I think it is sad.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
It is nothing more than him parroting a bold empty math claim.
Your ignoring the evidence does not make it go away.
At this point, all you are doing is repeating your bold empty choir sermons.
I stopped taking you seriously on the topic of evolution over 250 posts ago.
Shad
Veteran Member
Thus is an opinion which contradicts modern science.
Speciation has been observed
For a universal claim it is otherwise a key premise can not be true
I didn't deny that these events happen. I am denying it as a universal claim you are putting forward. Your view is based on induction thus can not be a deductive universal. This is simple logic
Yes it is called inductive reasoning which create conclusions that have a high probability of being true rather than an absolute. Ive told you about inductive reasoning many times now but you still do not get it. As I said you do not understand science if you can not figure out it is primarily based on inductive reasoning.
Speciation has been observed which resulted in new specie(s). You are mistaking genus with species.
I quit reading links a long time ago. They are all rhetoric, with no evidence. I said since you have no knowledge of what value infinity is, any formula that uses one, it unreliable.
The fact that you don't have the intellect to understand what I say, points to you having a literacy problem. It is amusing that those with a 2 digit IQ, think insulting someone is a sign of their intellect. Well they are right about that.
If it so well verified, post one, just one example of something in the TOE that has been proved. l Scientifically of course. You can't do it. If you think cosmologist have proved the origin of the universe, you are severely, science challenged.
The cure for evo headaches is to insist your evangelist provide evidence for their guesses.
Shad
Veteran Member
The Bartel and Szostak experiment refuted these "against the odds" argument in the 90s.
It is not an opinion, It has been observed and repeated 1000 or time every day. It verifies what science and the Bible says---after their kind. Evolution contraqdsicts science, Better real science contradicts evolution.
Yes it has but it was also observed that the specie did not change---the salamanders remained salamanders, and the gulls remained gulls.
Why not. Many universal claims are true.
If the same thing happens a gazzillion times the same way, you are able to say it a scientific fact that it has always happened that way. If you have never seen an A become a B, you can say, that is only a guess that it can happen.
Inductive reasoning is not evidence. if you think it is, it is you who doesn't understand science.
Give me the example you have in mind where speciation resulted in a new species.
Animore
Active Member
You offe nothing in this post ut the same old, tiredless arguments which have been refuted. Without even clicking on the link, you're going going to prove I don't understand science by assuming, blindly, that there is no evidence? This makes no sense.
Typical evo talk? HA! I'm sorry but this is just..
That's the only thing you've got? THAT'S IT? Seriously?
Since you're too lazy to even search up a few links, I'll give you proof:
Discovering DNA
One of the more remarkable things about On the Origin of Species is that Charles Darwin articulated his theory without knowing the exact mechanism by which variation occurs. It wouldn’t be until Watson and Crick’s discovery of DNA in the 1950s that evolutionary biologists would finally have the answer.
The advent of genetics is the single most important thing to happen to the study of evolutionary biology since Darwin’s theory first appeared (with a respectful tip of the hat to Gregor Mendel and his discovery of the fundamental laws of inheritance). Because DNA is universal to all life, its presence strongly suggests that all creatures on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.
It also explains how the proliferation of genetic mutations (essentially copy errors), combined with the processes of natural selection, enables evolution to happen. Ultimately, DNA is the engine that drives evolution. It’s an elegant—sometimes brutal—process that doesn’t require a guiding hand. Natural selection is a wholly autonomous process, thus earning it the moniker of “God killer.”
Finding Transtional Fossils
Species come and go, but life goes on. This is the essential lesson of the extensive fossil record—one that dates back 3.8 billion years. What’s more, it’s a chain of continuity used by evolutionary biologists to study the various interconnected progressions made by species as they change over time. So-called “transitional fossils” — like the recent discovery of Pappochelys, a 240-million-year-old reptile with a set of emerging turtle-like features — provide evidence for “missing links” between two different species by showing some of the traits of both, although this isn’t necessarily evidence of direct descent. Biologists use each discovery of such new species to fill in the evolutionary gaps.
View attachment 15285
The recent discovery of Pappochelys, a 240-million-year-old reptile with a set of emerging turtle-like features, is helping scientists fill in an important evolutionary gap—while causing great consternation to creationists. (Credit: Rainer Schoch/Nature)
The presence of so many fossils demonstrates the ever-changing diversity of life since it first emerged. From life’s early beginnings as single-celled prokaryotic cells through to the Cambrian Explosion and the emergence of dinosaurs and mammals, it’s a story of continuous adaptation. Creationists like to believe that certain evolutionary steps are intractable, but as more and more transitional fossils are discovered, it’s clear that each evolutionary advance can be explained.
For example, some creationists argue that evolutionists cannot identify missing links between reptiles and birds. A post from Scientific American offers a compelling rebuttal:
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Indeed, fortuitous mutations have fueled a trial-and-error process that have produced gradual but dramatic changes in species over the course of eons. Some evolutionary offshoots worked for a while, but changing circumstances—such as difficult environmental conditions or the introduction of a rival species—produced dead ends (e.g. wooly mammoths, sabre toothed tigers, and very likely, the panda bear). Other branches proved more resilient, allowing species to continue in novel directions (birds, as an offshoot of dinosaurs, are an excellent example). And yet some species, such as cyanobacteria, coelacanths, and crocodiles, have barely changed, showing that evolution doesn’t fix what ain’t broke.
Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
Typically, evolutionary biologists like to point out the differences in species as they branch away from common ancestors, but they also like to identify those characteristics that remain common to both. This serves the dual purpose of showing evolution-in-action, while also demonstrating the subtle ways in which speciation can occur.
For example, the form and structure (morphologies) of deer, moose, horses, and zebras are strikingly similar. Not surprisingly, they share a common ancestor. Similarly, seagulls and pelicans are similar in their appearance, behavior, and DNA. Again, they share a common ancestor, from which they deviated in relatively minor but important ways. Similarly, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis were more alike than they were different, branching off from the evolutionary tree fairly recently in evolutionary history.
As Darwin pointed out 150 years ago, these common characteristics provide indisputable data points in favor of evolution, showing the ways in which species diverge when circumstances change.
Finding Vestigial Traits
One of the more compelling arguments in favor of evolution is the presence of vestigial traits—physical characteristics that are gradually working their way out of an organism’s genetic profile. Most of these traits are benign, but some can be harmful (which is why they’re often referred to as “evolutionary baggage”).
Just as full-blown characteristics don’t appear overnight—such as flight in birds, or an elephant’s long and dextrous trunk—traits that are no longer required for an organism’s day-to-day survival take a long time to disappear. These characteristics fade away because there’s no pressure for the gene or genes in question to retain them, resulting in faded or lingering traits that bear a weak resemblance to their original form.
In humans, classic examples include the appendix, wisdom teeth, the coccyx (or tailbone), and tonsils. Certain behaviors can also be considered vestigial, such as the Palmar Grasp Reflex and our instinctive aversions to bugs and snakes.
Finding Imperfect Characteristics
Because our current physiological form is derived from those of our ancestors, we can hardly be considered an ideal species; there are many inherent design flaws in the human body. The throat (pharynx), for instance, serves as a conduit for both food and air. In males, the urethra both helps move urine from the bladder and transports sperm to the penis. Then there is our inability to biosynthesize vitamin C, the extremely narrow birth canal (in women), and our over-loaded lower backs.
Deliberate conscious design, evolution doesn’t care about perfection. Adaptations simply need to be good enough. What’s more, evolution cannot start from scratch; each species has to be crafted from its previous form, which can often lead to awkward or problematic characteristics.
Would you like me to go on?