Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Atheism is a religion"

"I dont have enough faith to be an atheist".

• "I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte

 

[Audie]

• "I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte

"rethink"? "think"? Surely you're joking.

 

[shunyadragon]

Evolution is faith based belief, too. Creation scientists and I think that the battle favors creation due to epigenetic inheritance showing how wonderful a design God made and that it will favor creation because majjor phenotypic changes can occur without Darwin's mutation ideas and slow natural selection.

Creation scientists are a herd of Oxen Morons that perpetuate oxymoronism.

 

[Revoltingest]

• "I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte

From their perspective, "faith" & "inductive reasoning" are the same thing.
Getting past this is key.

 

[james bond]

"Battle"?

Some of us will be more impressed with "Creation scientists" if they ever manage to come up with
something that contradicts the ToE.

One thing to disprove it.

>>A: One thing to disprove it.<<

Darwin's ToE states we have a common ancestor, the bipedal ape. We still got plenty of apes. Show me a fully bipedal one. (Professor Evan Lovejoy of Kent University, who reconstructed Lucy, thinks apes evolved from humans.)

Lucy or austrapithecus afarensis wasn't a fully bipedal ape. Richard Leakey thinks it is comprised of multiple species since it's parts were found miles apart. This explains it's large head and chimpanzee body.

 

[james bond]

No, creationism and evolutionary science are fundamentally different pursuits borne of different epistemologies. The latter is evidence based, the former faith based. That is why they come to such radically different conclusions. They are different methods for deciding what is true. And they have very different track records.

Creation has evidence going for it such as the chicken came before the egg and the oak tree before the acorn. We have the bush of life vs the tree of life. OTOH evolution's evidence is made up by humans. Made up and faith based. Humans seem to have a need for making things up in the name of atheist science.

Adding gods to scientific theories doesn't make them work better. It gives them no more explanatory or predictive power.

Atheists are usually wrong. God and creation were there in the beginning. It was evolution that was added.

Naturally, creationists disagree, but they are making a religious objection, which carries no weight in science.

I understand that you have your beliefs, and that they are important to you. They likely guide and comfort you, and give your life centering and purpose. Of course, all of that can be accomplished without a god belief as well.

And I understand that this science contradicts your beliefs, and that you feel the need to try to diminish its impact on culture.

But you've probably also noticed that the creationists are unable to do that.

To the contrary, it's evos who do what you just said in the name of atheist science.

I've asked several what they recommend that the scientific community do. For example, should they throw out Darwin's theory and say instead that God created the kinds as the Bible teaches? What exactly are the creationists advocating. Should the scientists defund and close the abiogenesis research, and perhaps redirect those dollars to the Discovery Institute?

The problem that the creationists face is that even if creationism were in some sense historical fact and could be demonstrated to be so, it remains an idea that can be put to no practical use, which is untrue for the theory of evolution.

Thus, right or wrong, the creationist movement brings nothing to the table.

Creation science brings the truth to the table. I would say that creation science and how nature with its beauty and complexity is designed by a creator be taught in schools as creation theory in science. It would explain how proteins, DNA and life originated and how it functions. It would point out a young earth and geology formed by catastrophism.

 

[james bond]

Darwin was not even aware of genes. That came about a decade later with Mendel.



Uh, that entire claim consists of nothing but fantasy unleashed. Up to and including the idea that there is such a thing as "creation science" or, for that matter, "atheist science".

I'm glad you brought it up. Darwin wasn't aware of a lot of things, but evos still use his mutations, slow natural selection and common ancestor theories. You can continue to eat GMO food and drink HFCS Pepsi and think it's safe. Oh gawd.

Mendel and Lemarck were the first pioneers. Much has been done since 1954 (double helix) and 2003 (human genome chart). It finally came together in 2005 as epigenetics.

 

[Audie]

>>A: One thing to disprove it.<<

Darwin's ToE states we have a common ancestor, the bipedal ape. We still got plenty of apes. Show me a fully bipedal one. (Professor Evan Lovejoy of Kent University, who reconstructed Lucy, thinks apes evolved from humans.)

Lucy or austrapithecus afarensis wasn't a fully bipedal ape. Richard Leakey thinks it is comprised of multiple species since it's parts were found miles apart. This explains it's large head and chimpanzee body.

Where you get such a mishmash of nonsense, I
dont know. Do you?

Just this, say:

(Professor Evan Lovejoy of Kent University, who reconstructed Lucy, thinks apes evolved from humans.)

First off, as peopleare a species of ape, this makes zero sense.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm glad you brought it up. Darwin wasn't aware of a lot of things, but evos still use his mutations, slow natural selection and common ancestor theories.

Actually, we do not. We have learned since. It is not exactly a secret, you know. Darwin was not a "prophet of evolution" nor any similar nonsense.

He attained useful discoveries and proposed useful ideas. That has merit. But we do not rely on him. We never needed to. All the way back to Wallace, as a matter of fact.

You can continue to eat GMO food and drink HFCS Pepsi and think it's safe. Oh gawd.

Mendel and Lemarck were the first pioneers. Much has been done since 1954 (double helix) and 2003 (human genome chart). It finally came together in 2005 as epigenetics.

I would ask what you mean. But why should I?

 

[Subduction Zone]

>>A: One thing to disprove it.<<

Darwin's ToE states we have a common ancestor, the bipedal ape. We still got plenty of apes. Show me a fully bipedal one. (Professor Evan Lovejoy of Kent University, who reconstructed Lucy, thinks apes evolved from humans.)

Lucy or austrapithecus afarensis wasn't a fully bipedal ape. Richard Leakey thinks it is comprised of multiple species since it's parts were found miles apart. This explains it's large head and chimpanzee body.

Here you go, one fully bipedal ape:

That one is moderately furry.

And I seriously doubt your claim about Lovejoy. Do you even have the name right? Do you have a valid link that supports your claim?

 

[Audie]

Here you go, one fully bipedal ape:

That one is moderately furry.

And I seriously doubt your claim about Lovejoy. Do you even have the name right? Do you have a valid link that supports your claim?

I wont say Bond, J. Bond could not have gotten it more wrong if he tried, but-
he got it very wrong. I think his confused and utterly false take on this will stand well for his ability to process information.

He is all yours to waste time with. i wont.

Professor: Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-like Apes | Kent State University

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wont say Bond, J. Bond could not have gotten it more wrong if he tried, but-
he got it very wrong. I think his confused and utterly false take on this will stand well for his ability to process information.

He is all yours to waste time with. i wont.

Professor: Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-like Apes | Kent State University

So he not only got the name of Lovejoy wrong, he got what Lovejoy claimed wrong too. That seems to be about normal for JB. Please note he said Evan Lovejoy, not Owen.

 

[ChristineM]

Probably he does not.

We see a lot of the same ideas, "ideas" that is, put
forth over and over. Nothing ever original, nothing they
worked out by-gasp- thinking.

"Atheism is a religion"

"I dont have enough faith to be an atheist".

Cliche after cliche, and one moldy pratt after another.

How can atheism be a faith? It is not a proper noun

Those same religious faithful who claim atheism is a faith do so without capitalising the word, yet insist their faith be capitalised

 

[Skwim]

How can atheism be a faith? It is not a proper noun

Those same religious faithful who claim atheism is a faith do so without capitalising the word, yet insist their faith be capitalised

Nice points.


.

 

[james bond]

Actually, we do not. We have learned since. It is not exactly a secret, you know. Darwin was not a "prophet of evolution" nor any similar nonsense.

He attained useful discoveries and proposed useful ideas. That has merit. But we do not rely on him. We never needed to. All the way back to Wallace, as a matter of fact.



I would ask what you mean. But why should I?

You should ask what I mean because it may help save your life.

What's left of Darwin's works to you then? Do you still think evolution happens through mutation? Mutation lead to GMO and their advocates claimed that GMO would help feed the poor people of the world and help combat famine, but that turned out to be a lie. All the mutated agri products or environmental products do is wreak havoc. I think that the US has one of the worst food supplies in the world due to GMO. And it leeched its way into our gasoline through corn ethanol.

GMOs Will Not Feed the World, New Report Concludes

"The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 established the Renewable Fuels Standard, which required that a certain amount of ethanol be used in the nations' fuel supply. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 increased this amount."

Gasoline Question and Answer | Costco

We agree that Darwin wasn't a prophet, but creationists think he wasn't a prophet at all. He helped kill millions and ruined our food, beverage and gasoline markets.

 

[ChristineM]

You should ask what I mean because it may help save your life.

What's left of Darwin's works to you then? Do you still think evolution happens through mutation? Mutation lead to GMO and their advocates claimed that GMO would help feed the poor people of the world and help combat famine, but that turned out to be a lie. All the mutated agri products or environmental products do is wreak havoc. I think that the US has one of the worst food supplies in the world due to GMO. And it leeched its way into our gasoline through corn ethanol.

GMOs Will Not Feed the World, New Report Concludes

"The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 established the Renewable Fuels Standard, which required that a certain amount of ethanol be used in the nations' fuel supply. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 increased this amount."

Gasoline Question and Answer | Costco

We agree that Darwin wasn't a prophet, but creationists think he wasn't a prophet at all. He helped kill millions and ruined our food, beverage and gasoline markets.

A lie??? Norman Borlaug, is credited with keeping alive over 1 billion people through genetically modifying crops.

Norman Borlaug - Wikipedia

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Sorry, but with this many mistakes, you forfeit any standing you might have had in a discussion of science. You need to get your ducks in a row to be criticize science credibly.

Let's look at some:

Darwin's ToE states we have a common ancestor, the bipedal ape.

Darwin's theory doesn't mention apes.

Show me a fully bipedal one.

Look in the mirror.

Professor Evan Lovejoy ...

You got his name wrong ...

... of Kent University

... and the name of his university.

Lucy or austrapithecus afarensis

And the name of this extinct hominin.

... wasn't a fully bipedal ape.

Lucy stood upright: What is the evidence that australopithecines were bipedal?

Richard Leakey thinks it is comprised of multiple species since it's parts were found miles apart.

Non sequitur. You can find human bones miles apart. It doesn't make one of them nonhuman.

This explains it's large head and chimpanzee body.

Lucy's cranial capacity was chimplike - a little larger.[/QUOTE]

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Creation has evidence going for it such as the chicken came before the egg

The egg came before the chicken.. Fish and insects were laying eggs long before chickens evolved

evolution's evidence is made up by humans.

Evolution's evidence is uncovered by humans. It is found

I would say that creation science and how nature with its beauty and complexity is designed by a creator be taught in schools as creation theory in science.

Why? It's religion. That's what Sunday school is for.

Also, neither beauty nor complexity per se are arguments for intelligent design.

It would explain how proteins, DNA and life originated and how it functions.

Creationism explains nothing.because it offers no mechanism. Saying that God did it has exactly as much explanatory capability as saying that it did it by itself with nothing more added: None.

Darwin explained the mechanism.

======

Incidentally, you ignored my claim that adding gods to scientific theories does nothing to improve them, and that creationism would remain an idea with no usefulness even if it could be proven to be correct.I'm sure that if you could find a way to use that knowledge, you would have offered what it was here.

You also ignored, "I've asked several what they recommend that the scientific community do. For example, should they throw out Darwin's theory and say instead that God created the kinds as the Bible teaches? What exactly are the creationists advocating. Should the scientists defund and close the abiogenesis research, and perhaps redirect those dollars to the Discovery Institute?"

Can we consider that a tacit admission that you have no answers to any of that? I do.

So does the scientific community, which is why it plods on as before. Creationism has nothing to offer man in his quest for useful knowledge. If you could offer a counterexample, you would, wouldn't you?

 

[james bond]

Where you get such a mishmash of nonsense, I
dont know. Do you?

Just this, say:

(Professor Evan Lovejoy of Kent University, who reconstructed Lucy, thinks apes evolved from humans.)

First off, as peopleare a species of ape, this makes zero sense.

Stating that people are a species of ape is wrong. That's why it makes zero sense.

Why? I just proved that humans do not have a common ancestor. Moreover, a hybrid ape and human cannot live past one generation. Thus, you and the other evolutionists are wrong. Thus, it makes perfect sense that people were created by God as stated in the Bible.

Moreover, I have the experts on my side. One is Owen (not Evan, my bad) Lovejoy and the other is Richard Leakey. People are NOT a species of ape. Again, it makes perfect sense when people were created by God as stated in the Bible.

Your weak sauce response is your faith in the evolution theory. A better theory is people are people. They're not apes because there never was a common ancestor that was bipedal. Otherwise, quit beating around the bush and show the world the first fully bipedal ape. Show us our common ancestor.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of macroevolution of apes to humans. Thus, you'll have to go back to the square one. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Maybe you just want to believe in the Planet of the Apes.

 

[james bond]

The egg came before the chicken.. Fish and insects were laying eggs long before chickens evolved

If the egg came first, then what creature laid the egg? What creature fertilized the egg? So what if there were fish and insects that were laying eggs? We have fish and insects that are laying eggs today. What do they have to do with chickens?

The rest is blah, blah, blah. Darwin explained the mechanism.

Darwin did no such thing. He was wrong.

I stated that adding creation is a perfectly valid theory. Fully adult chickens and roosters can make a fertilized egg. Thus, you are wrong in your claim about adding God.

You also ignored, "I've asked several what they recommend that the scientific community do. For example, should they throw out Darwin's theory and say instead that God created the kinds as the Bible teaches? What exactly are the creationists advocating. Should the scientists defund and close the abiogenesis research, and perhaps redirect those dollars to the Discovery Institute?"

I would advocate donating to ICR and Answers in Genesis.

So does the scientific community, which is why it plods on as before. Creationism has nothing to offer man in his quest for useful knowledge. If you could offer a counterexample, you would, wouldn't you?

Not the scientific community, but the atheist scientific community. Creation scientists from AIG, ICR and more are left out. I must've said this about a million times, but atheists cannot get it through their heads.