Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Really? And so do you.

It isn't picking nits to point out that he doesn't. He was asking a question.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have demonstrated multiple times that you do not understand the concept.

The concept is that cells emerged from other cells that were there, eventually forming large trees and dinosaurs. Without, of course, a superior intelligence behind the process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The concept is that cells emerged from other cells that were there, eventually forming large trees and dinosaurs. Without, of course, a superior intelligence behind the process.

That is a very poor statement of evolution. But we were discussing the concept of evidence.

There is a good explanation that is testable that supports evolution. What test could possibly refute your beliefs?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The concept is that cells emerged from other cells that were there, eventually forming large trees and dinosaurs. Without, of course, a superior intelligence behind the process.

There isn't any evidence to say one way or the other, but for an agent to be included in the explanations using science would amount to making false statements. Certainly, you would agree that such a thing is wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

It isn't picking nits to point out that he doesn't. He was asking a question.

Sorry. The situation (not proof, of course) is that there is no real evidence for evolution as proposed by scientists. The concept of evolution is apparently that from a chance meeting of some cells life emerged. Even though there are similarities of DNA among organisms and fossils, ducks may resemble dinosaurs, etc., there is no proof (yes, proof) that evolution occurred so as to cause beetles, trees and monkeys. If I were there when the lineages supposedly came out of the "Unknown Common Ancestor" of monkeys, bonobos, humans, I might be surprised. But of course we were not, and neither were the teeth and partial skeletal remains of organisms that have died. Obviously people are going to believe what they will believe and our minds tell us logically to believe from the idea that humans look like gorillas among other things. But that is no longer how I see it.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is a very poor statement of evolution. But we were discussing the concept of evidence.

There is a good explanation that is testable that supports evolution. What test could possibly refute your beliefs?

As it was so aptly said in "Gone With the Wind" at the end -- "frankly my dear" -- (I paraphrase) "have a nice day."

 

[YoursTrue]

Magic is like Genesis 2:7, where man is created from non-living “dust on the ground”, all “fully-grown” and alive. That’s magic.

Creating all the animals from the ground (2:19). That’s magic.

Man (Adam) being about to name every animals (2:19-20), without learning & education. That’s more magic.

And creating a “fully-grown” woman from Adam’s rib. Guess what, YoursTrue? Yes, again, more magic.

In life, especially humans, no one is born an adult or born “fully-grown”. That’s the fact of life. Genesis 2, the creation of Adam & Eve, all “fully-grown”, can only happened in myths, and with the nonexistent magic.

There are nothing “natural” within the whole Genesis 2 chapter. The whole event is unnatural and highly improbable. Humans and animals simply don’t pop out of ground.

Actually, the idea that non-living matter became somehow suddenly alive by "natural" means, makes it more fantastic. And of course, not to mention, had the cells multiply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As it was so aptly said in "Gone With the Wind" at the end -- "frankly my dear" -- (I paraphrase) "have a nice day."

I know that you do not understand the concept of evidence. But that still does not excuse you for claiming that your God is a liar..

Unfortunately as long as your refuse to learn what "real evidence" is you won't understand how you are calling your God a liar.


As to evidence, it does not matter if it convinces you whether it is real evidence or not. It matters it it can convince someone that can reason rationally that tells us whether it is real evidence or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry. The situation (not proof, of course) is that there is no real evidence for evolution as proposed by scientists. The concept of evolution is apparently that from a chance meeting of some cells life emerged. Even though there are similarities of DNA among organisms and fossils, ducks may resemble dinosaurs, etc., there is no proof (yes, proof) that evolution occurred so as to cause beetles, trees and monkeys. If I were there when the lineages supposedly came out of the "Unknown Common Ancestor" of monkeys, bonobos, humans, I might be surprised. But of course we were not, and neither were the teeth and partial skeletal remains of organisms that have died. Obviously people are going to believe what they will believe and our minds tell us logically to believe from the idea that humans look like gorillas among other things. But that is no longer how I see it.

Except that is not correct. There is plenty of evidence.

The theory of evolution is not an explanation of the origin of life. The proposed hypotheses of the origin of life do not include the chance meeting of cells from which life arose. That peculiar idea is circular, requiring living cells to be the precursor of living cells. Abiogenesis is a group of hypotheses attempting to propose natural origins of life on earth from non-living chemistry.

Proof, as you have been informed many times is not a standard in science. Should I remind you that we, as Christians, have no proof or even significant evidence of what we believe that we can show to others. Do you intend to hold science and its supporters to a standard that we cannot hold for ourselves?

Not being a firsthand witness is not evidence that events did not occur as the evidence indicates. Otherwise, murderers would go free before there was even a trial.

Accepting science is belief of a different sort based on evidence, logic and reason. It is not the same as belief in something that has no evidence.

I accept that you reject the views of science, but that too is not evidence that it has failed in its purpose or that abiogenesis or evolution did not occur. The evidence is on the side of science in this. Not only do I accept that, but I seek to understand it and see it as a manifestation of the Work of God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually, the idea that non-living matter became somehow suddenly alive by "natural" means, makes it more fantastic. And of course, not to mention, had the cells multiply.

It is fantastic, but not in the sense of being unbelievable.

 

[gnostic]

Actually, the idea that non-living matter became somehow suddenly alive by "natural" means, makes it more fantastic.

But dust or soil, whether the soil be clay or silt, don’t magically and unnaturally transform into living cells.

What you’d call fantastic, I would call fairytale, or as my nephew would say, “a load of baloney”.

Silt and clay are respectively made of granular or powdery silicates.

In silt soil, the original silicate minerals are either feldspar or quartz. While in clay soil, the silicate minerals originated from mica.

There are not even trace evidence of silicates in any cell of any organisms, include that of human cells.

All life forms on Earth, are made of carbon-based molecules (eg proteins, DNA, RNA, carbohydrates, lipids, etc, are all biological macromolecules), not silicon-based molecules. You cannot naturally transform silicates into organic compounds.

Genesis Creation is definitely a work of fiction or fantasy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is a very poor statement of evolution. But we were discussing the concept of evidence.

There is a good explanation that is testable that supports evolution. What test could possibly refute your beliefs?

Given that we spent days and pages going over the most significant offering that boils down to an argument from ignorance, I don't know of any test myself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But dust or soil, whether the soil be clay or silt, don’t magically and unnaturally transform into living cells.

What you’d call fantastic, I would call fairytale, or as my nephew would say, “a load of baloney”.

Silt and clay are respectively made of granular or powdery silicates.

In silt soil, the original silicate minerals are either feldspar or quartz. While in clay soil, the silicate minerals originated from mica.

There are not even trace evidence of silicates in any cell of any organisms, include that of human cells.

All life forms on Earth, are made of carbon-based molecules (eg proteins, DNA, RNA, carbohydrates, lipids, etc, are all biological macromolecules), not silicon-based molecules. You cannot naturally transform silicates into organic compounds.

Genesis Creation is definitely a work of fiction or fantasy.

I see it as allegorical for a people that were not knowledgeable about many subjects. A means to impart an idea and not to deliver facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In silt soil, the original silicate minerals are either feldspar or quartz. While in clay soil, the silicate minerals originated from mica.

Actually in a non-arid environment feldspar will weather into clay. Quartz is rather non reactive so it tends to form sand or silt depending on the grain size of the parent rock.

It is an oversimplification but one can think of continental rock starting out as granite. Granite is typically twenty to thirty percent quartz, fifty five to sixty five feldspars, five to ten percent micas, and about five percent amphibole.

 

[YoursTrue]

But dust or soil, whether the soil be clay or silt, don’t magically and unnaturally transform into living cells.

What you’d call fantastic, I would call fairytale, or as my nephew would say, “a load of baloney”.

Silt and clay are respectively made of granular or powdery silicates.

In silt soil, the original silicate minerals are either feldspar or quartz. While in clay soil, the silicate minerals originated from mica.

There are not even trace evidence of silicates in any cell of any organisms, include that of human cells.

All life forms on Earth, are made of carbon-based molecules (eg proteins, DNA, RNA, carbohydrates, lipids, etc, are all biological macromolecules), not silicon-based molecules. You cannot naturally transform silicates into organic compounds.

Genesis Creation is definitely a work of fiction or fantasy.

Something turned from lifeless to life. Somewhere, somehow in the realm of evolution starting from...lifeless stuff. Naturally you might say well, uh, that's abiogenesis and not evolution. Without life starting from cells, you'd have...nothing? Soil, clay, dust, came to LIFE. Or maybe bubbling water, then eventually after lots of multiples by chemical reaction, came dinosaurs and flying birds.

 

[YoursTrue]

I see it as allegorical for a people that were not knowledgeable about many subjects. A means to impart an idea and not to deliver facts.

Amazing how Moses knew that life in the first (not second) human was placed in something lifeless.

 

[YoursTrue]

But dust or soil, whether the soil be clay or silt, don’t magically and unnaturally transform into living cells.

What you’d call fantastic, I would call fairytale, or as my nephew would say, “a load of baloney”.

Silt and clay are respectively made of granular or powdery silicates.

In silt soil, the original silicate minerals are either feldspar or quartz. While in clay soil, the silicate minerals originated from mica.

There are not even trace evidence of silicates in any cell of any organisms, include that of human cells.

All life forms on Earth, are made of carbon-based molecules (eg proteins, DNA, RNA, carbohydrates, lipids, etc, are all biological macromolecules), not silicon-based molecules. You cannot naturally transform silicates into organic compounds.

Genesis Creation is definitely a work of fiction or fantasy.

Let me ask you a question. Don't scientists conjecture that life or the first cells may have come from water? Or from minerals that may have fallen to the earth?

 

[YoursTrue]

I see it as allegorical for a people that were not knowledgeable about many subjects. A means to impart an idea and not to deliver facts.

Facts? You're saying that life evolving from the first cells on earth that move to multiply is a fact? Still thinking about the very complicated, intricate substance of DNA. And scientists propose this evolved? Without an intelligent force behind it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Something turned from lifeless to life. Somewhere, somehow in the realm of evolution starting from...lifeless stuff. Naturally you might say well, uh, that's abiogenesis and not evolution. Without life starting from cells, you'd have...nothing? Soil, clay, dust, came to LIFE. Or maybe bubbling water, then eventually after lots of multiples by chemical reaction, came dinosaurs and flying birds.

Yes, life probably started out via abiogenesis. So what? Even if a God started life by magic, it still evolved after that.

For some odd reason creationists have a hard time understanding this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me ask you a question. Don't scientists conjecture that life or the first cells may have come from water? Or from minerals that may have fallen to the earth?

Conjecture is a loaded term.

Did life start in an aquatic environment? Yes.