A Challenge To All Creationists

[Ouroboros]

Dude. It has been previously stated several times that we are discussing macro-evolution WITHOUT A CREATOR (GOD). Capisce?

You said it yourself that evolution is impossible without abiogenesis. And it's not. You brought it in, duuuude.

Actually, this thread isn't about abiogenesis at all, but about Creationists proving creation without mentioning evolution, so all-in-all, you're the one who is completely off the path in this thread. Capice?

 

[viole]

I think that basically to believe in evolution without a god is to believe everything made itself.

And what makes you believe that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't think most God believers think that. Yet, YOU believe in a magic force that made everything without knowing anything.

I only believe what is evidenced. Abiogensis has evidence. God has zero. I have no reason to assume that anything supernatural has happened therefore everything has a natural explanation.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Well, I can't go that far as our universe and everything in it appears to be in constant change. If abiogenesis did occur, it would be logical that it would cause other changes to occur. However, whether this all was caused by a "creator" or "creators" per se, I simply cannot say because I wasn't there when it all started plus there's no verifiable evidence to accept or deny that concept.

I disagree, but that's not the point. The point is you are right, there is no verifiable evidence in favor of abiogenesis. None.

 

[Ouroboros]

There has to have been something along the line of change which caused a new life form.

Sure. I have no problem with that. Abiogenesis has not been answered. More and more points to a natural beginning, but I'm being honest here and can say that whichever way biogenesis goes, natural or supernatural, I know that biological evolution is not wrong.

Nobody is saying a single mutation made something new.

He did. He said, "Can you give a modern example of a mutation that resulted in a different life form". When someones says "a mutation", they mean a single mutation. Otherwise it would have been plural.

Nobody is saying a hundred mutations are able to produce anything new, but something new eventually appears. Explain the eventually, please.

111
112
122
222

I changed one digit at a time until I had a number that is twice as big as the original. One change at a time results in a series of changes to a complete bigger change, just like in calculus. The sum of many small changes can be much larger than the original/starting digit/point. If you have studied integrals, you know this.

How is skyscraper built? A few floors at a time. Or a pyramid. Or a battleship. Small parts, over long time, produce something that wasn't there before. Small mutations are small parts, that all summed together produce something. Do a number of changes, and the final result is different than the original.

 

[Reggie Miller]

yet you believe a magic man made everything with a wave of his wand?

No.

 

[metis]

I disagree, but that's not the point. The point is you are right, there is no verifiable evidence in favor of abiogenesis. None.

... or in the concept of there being a god or gods. None.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I believe that such "speculations" are rational.

I think we have a consistent pattern here. Most, if not all, naturalistic explanations about things, replaced previous supernatural explanations of the same thing. The contrary never happened, to my knowledge.

In other words, your claim that the birth of life cannot have natural explanations, might in the future get thrown into the same heap where the claim "lightining can only be issued by Thor" finds itself in.

Ciao

- viole

I'm not interested in speculations. But thanks.

 

[Reggie Miller]

... or in the concept of there being a god or gods. None.

Never said there is/was.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Well, that would take some time and a lot of writing. I think it's more about you doing your due diligence and research some of this stuff instead of asking for being force fed. Also, if I did manage to get you all information about it, would you really read several hundreds of pages of scientific data? Would it satisfy you at all considering that you're not even trying to read this on your own? Don't think so. Jesus said something about throwing pearls...

Well, don't bother. You're just going to post a bunch of speculation based on assumption(s) that don't really amount to a hill of beans, anyway.

My point is to show that abiogenesis & macro-evolution is all just speculation and assumption. I have made that point.

 

[savagewind]

And what makes you believe that?

Ciao

- viole

Force and matter are not enough to make a machine, which is what each life is imo.

 

[Reggie Miller]

You said it yourself that evolution is impossible without abiogenesis. And it's not. You brought it in, duuuude.

Actually, this thread isn't about abiogenesis at all, but about Creationists proving creation without mentioning evolution, so all-in-all, you're the one who is completely off the path in this thread. Capice?

Well, I was in a discussion with someone else that you butted into without knowing what we were talking about. If you need to say these things to rescue your pride, go for it.

 

[savagewind]

I only believe what is evidenced. Abiogensis has evidence. God has zero. I have no reason to assume that anything supernatural has happened therefore everything has a natural explanation.

I do not believe in God The Supernatural. I believe in God, naturally. To me, God is IT that knows 1 plus 1 makes 2 and every other fact. Are you going to tell me that one added to one does not always make two? If that is true, then I believe God knows that also.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well, don't bother. You're just going to post a bunch of speculation based on assumption(s) that don't really amount to a hill of beans, anyway.

Proves my point exactly. Your understanding of evolution starts with you being honest about actually wanting to learn and understand. As long as that is missing, it's just a waste of time.

My point is to show that abiogenesis & macro-evolution is all just speculation and assumption. I have made that point.

Sure. Abiogenesis, I do know doesn't have enough evidence (yet). And I do understand your concern with macro-evolution, but the things I told you were clear misunderstandings, like that "produce new information" bit. The "new information" isn't a problem. Far from it. They've even produced new proteins artificially. If it can't be made, then how can it be made?

Think of the gene as a word. Each codon is a letter. There are 20 letters in the DNA alphabet (actually more, but the basic ones are 20). Now, if you can have word that have up to 500 letters long. How big would the dictionary be if you can combine these words in any letter combination? Use some of you math skilz here...

 

[Ouroboros]

Well, I was in a discussion with someone else that you butted into without knowing what we were talking about. If you need to say these things to rescue your pride, go for it.

You're still completely wrong about "new information" bit. Has nothing to do with speculation or my pride, but with your ignorance about it. Simple as that.

And with comes to abiogenesis required for evolution, yet another misunderstanding based on your denial of the obvious.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Proves my point exactly. Your understanding of evolution starts with you being honest about actually wanting to learn and understand. As long as that is missing, it's just a waste of time.


Sure. Abiogenesis, I do know doesn't have enough evidence (yet). And I do understand your concern with macro-evolution, but the things I told you were clear misunderstandings, like that "produce new information" bit. The "new information" isn't a problem. Far from it. They've even produced new proteins artificially. If it can't be made, then how can it be made?

Think of the gene as a word. Each codon is a letter. There are 20 letters in the DNA alphabet (actually more, but the basic ones are 20). Now, if you can have word that have up to 500 letters long. How big would the dictionary be if you can combine these words in any letter combination? Use some of you math skilz here...

I understand it well enough. But since I don't get into assumptions and speculation I don't buy into the theories of abiogenesis or macro-evolution.

You have to have a lot of assumptions before you can even get started with either theory. Good luck with it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Force and matter are not enough to make a machine, which is what each life is imo.

Hence my view is that life is a fundamental thing/force of nature. It has to be. Planted there by some external supernatural God or not, it has to be integrated and infused in nature for new offspring to become alive.

 

[Reggie Miller]

You're still completely wrong about "new information" bit. Has nothing to do with speculation or my pride, but with your ignorance about it. Simple as that.

And with comes to abiogenesis required for evolution, yet another misunderstanding based on your denial of the obvious.

So show me the "new information," tell me how it came about and why and what caused it.

Explain evolution without abiogenesis or a creator (god).

 

[savagewind]

I do not really believe that with enough TIME anything can be made with no scheme.
I trust there is a scheme. I do think that there has always been one.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I do not really believe that with enough TIME anything can be made with no scheme.
I trust there is a scheme. I do think that there has always been one.

There is a scheme. But that's all it is. A scheme made of speculation and assumption.