Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Really? Try looking at the following:
How did life begin? | New Scientist
Very interesting article -- begins this way:
"The question of how life began is one of the most profound in science, and although many theories exist, scientists still cannot agree on an answer. It continues to be a topic for debate... "

That does not help your false claims against others. If you had been listening you would know that it is still hypothetical at points Scientists do not have all of the answers yet. Do you realize that there still is plenty of evidence for abiogenesis and none for your beliefs?

 

[YoursTrue]

That does not help your false claims against others. If you had been listening you would know that it is still hypothetical at points Scientists do not have all of the answers yet. Do you realize that there still is plenty of evidence for abiogenesis and none for your beliefs?

I understand about the claims of abiogenesis and how life originated with cellular structure and chemistry. The article brings out that scientists are at odds regarding this. It is not a false claim against others.

 

[YoursTrue]

That does not help your false claims against others. If you had been listening you would know that it is still hypothetical at points Scientists do not have all of the answers yet. Do you realize that there still is plenty of evidence for abiogenesis and none for your beliefs?

You might want to argue about religion and your claim that there is no God with others. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I also believe the unfolding of the "days" (NOT a 24-hour period as you were taught early on) of creation. It is true that many religions and religious people do not agree as to what the Bible or their religion(s) mean, and you can point out situations you see in the Bible, but this does not mean that scientists know or agree as to how life originated.

 

[YoursTrue]

You might want to argue about religion and your claim that there is no God with others. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I also believe the unfolding of the "days" (NOT a 24-hour period as you were taught early on) of creation. It is true that many religions and religious people do not agree as to what the Bible or their religion(s) mean, and you can point out situations you see in the Bible, but this does not mean that scientists know or agree as to how life originated.

@Subduction Zone or that they will ever find the answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand about the claims of abiogenesis and how life originated with cellular structure and chemistry. The article brings out that scientists are at odds regarding this. It is not a false claim against others.

Yes, your claim was still a false claim against others. No different from others accusing you of being a child molester. There are differences , but that does not mean that any of them used conjecture. That would be akin to someone claiming that you are a child molester because you spanked your child once. You made a serious accusation that requires evidence on your side. You have none.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, your claim was still a false claim against others. No different from others accusing you of being a child molester. There are differences , but that does not mean that any of them used conjecture. That would be akin to someone claiming that you are a child molester because you spanked your child once. You made a serious accusation that requires evidence on your side. You have none.

I guess you didn't read the article in New Scientist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You might want to argue about religion and your claim that there is no God with others. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I also believe the unfolding of the "days" (NOT a 24-hour period as you were taught early on) of creation. It is true that many religions and religious people do not agree as to what the Bible or their religion(s) mean, and you can point out situations you see in the Bible, but this does not mean that scientists know or agree as to how life originated.

The fact that life almost certainly arose naturally does not refute God. No one ever said that it did. I don't know why you think that it does. An all powerful God, and all knowing God, could have created the universe so that life arose on its own. You actually degrade got by making him a Stepin Fetchit god. Also you want to claim that he is a liar.

The Adam and Eve myth still serves as a morality tale. It fails if one takes it literally since God failed terribly if one analyzes it as a real event . In fact all of Genesis appears to be mythical. In fact the early books of the Bible portray God as an evil being, but luckily most of those claims are refuted by evidence. God is definitely not the evil being portrayed in the Old Testament. That should make you glad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess you didn't read the article in New Scientist.

Yes, I did. I can see that you did not understand it. By the way, I also saw what they got wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone or that they will ever find the answer.

They are far closer to an answer than you realize. One reason it took so long is that it is just now that we are beginning to understand life fully. There is no way to explain how life arose if one does not understand how life works today.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The DNA itself is the proof AND the evidence.

It's statements like which rightfully triggers people like @Subduction Zone to say that you don't understand the concept of evidence.

Naturally (oh, I am beginning to dislike that word) you probably would not agree because you think and believe dna came about by some sort of natural evolving process without an intelligent force (take intelligent as meaning thoughtful and personal) behind it. Anyway, when I worked for a chemistry professor at a college of science, the class had test tubes, propped up the test tubes with stands, used calibration methods, had liquids in vials. Put them together by formulation. Nothing was 'done' without someone putting it together. Of course, we can always go on to explosions -- but fortunately, no accidents happened while I was there

Do you also have a point to make?

. Oh yes, and monkeys did not "evolve" to the point they built universities and had labs with chemical elements for experimentation

Did you expect otherwise?
Did anyone?

. But as far as you're concerned, that's evolution! Or, as the old song went, "That's life!"

I see you are back to your usual strawmen that are neither here nor there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, why bother offering your opinion? Insofar as your question regarding a tree--what happens to the seed when it's planted?
And--DNA. According to one explanation, Humans share around 60% of DNA with bananas, 50% of our DNA with trees, 70% with slugs, 44% with honey bees, and even 25% with daffodils.
See now, it goes to offer the following explanation (scientific?)
"So there you have it! DNA similarities exist primarily because DNA is an influential chemical building block that makes up a huge portion of the genetic material shared by all living organisms."
Right. An "influential chemical building block," etc. Now I go back to my earlier days when I would say, "man, oh man..." And then I was an atheist.

You should try to stop talking about this subject until you have properly informed yourself.
You have no clue what you are talking about and all that comes out are strawmen and mistakes.

P.S. The evidence is the evidence. Of DNA. That's the evidence that there is -- a creative, intelligent process behind the mechanics.

That's a claim.
Claims aren't evidence.
Claims require evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

about DNA -- I don't play with hypotheses like you do.

Uhu.

You say this as if you are proud of it.
In reality, what you are saying is that you are content with just bare claims that even can't have any evidence.

So really, in other words, you are saying that you are willfully intellectually dishonest, don't understand what evidence is AND that you don't care about your ignorance either.

You are proving you have no proof. Your proof is your imagination. I see that. That is figurative seeing, of course.

No scientific theory has "proof".
How many times have people pointed this out to you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't say that because plants and humans "share" some DNA that means that evolution is false. It means that plants and humans have some similar DNA. It proves that plants and humans have some similar DNA in their organisms.

The structure of these matches (not mere similarities) is completely consistent with sharing ancestry.
It is completely consistent with species being the result of an evolutionary process from a common ancestor.
The pattern of matches is exactly like it should be if life evolved from common ancestors.

That is why the "similarities" in DNA are evidence in support of evolution.

See, there is an actual model of evolution that makes actual testable predictions.
Data that matches those predictions is evidence of the model.

DNA matches those predictions.
Hence, DNA is evidence for evolution.

You may return to your game of pigeon chess now.

Now -- you, of course, might like to argue about 24 hour days and the creative days in your mind and many others of that same mindset as you were taught in your early church, may be of 24 hour periods, even though the 7th day is not said to have closed yet -- and, of course, you falsify that by saying, "Oh, that's not true!" Just like you may play and say, "DNA is an evolved construction...with no intelligent constructor behind the process. It happened by -- something we can't really figure out yet...because if scientists concluded that there must be LOGICALLY an intelligent composing originator of DNA, that would mean -- um -- well, it just can't be."

If you wish to include an intelligence in the process of development of life, then present a proper model that makes testable predictions and show us the evidence that supports that model.

Otherwise, all you have are bare unfalsifiable claims. And those are literally infinite in number and totally useless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here is what I am saying: DNA is so complex and miniscule that to think it appeared by magic (i.e., the forces of evolution) rather than a Creator in the mechanics is beyond reach. Anyway --

Right.

So what you are saying is that your "evidence" is nothing more then an argument from awe / incredulity. A logical fallacy variation of the argument from ignorance.


Thanks for playing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I
What I am saying is that life did not come about by itself, i.e., just like that., without a superior defining force with intelligence.

Yes, that is indeed what you "say".
Nobody cares what you have to "say".

Trying supporting what you "say" with some valid evidence.
Then people will care.

But all have to offer are strawmen and species of arguments from ignorance.
So yeah....

//shrugs-shoulders-and-walks-away

For Adam to receive what is termed as the breath of life into his body that was described to be formed from the ground tells me that life is different than something that is deemed to not be alive, and that it did not come about just like that, as in sheer chemical reaction.

And you believe that adam tale, why?

 

[gnostic]

Gravity is a force or situation that is established to the extent that we cannot rise up in the air without wings or a mechanical device.

No, gravity isn’t force.

Gravity is acceleration in which a smaller body of mass is attracted and move to a more massive body. Acceleration is a measurement of change in velocity over time.

Force is when you have mass and acceleration together.

This force, relating to gravity, is known as “gravitation” or “gravitational force”.

That’s the Newtonian description of gravity and gravitation.

Einstein extended the theory on motion and gravity with Special Relativity & General Relativity.

In General Relativity, gravity is better described as curvature of spacetime. And underpinning this standard model of gravity (General Relativity), are set of mathematical equations, known as Einstein’s field equations.

You need to understand the language of physics.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, gravity isn’t force.

Gravity is acceleration in which a smaller body of mass is attracted and move to a more massive body. Acceleration is a measurement of change in velocity over time.

Force is when you have mass and acceleration together.

This force, relating to gravity, is known as “gravitation” or “gravitational force”.

That’s the Newtonian description of gravity and gravitation.

Einstein extended the theory on motion and gravity with Special Relativity & General Relativity.

In General Relativity, gravity is better described as curvature of spacetime. And underpinning this standard model of gravity (General Relativity), are set of mathematical equations, known as Einstein’s field equations.

You need to understand the language of physics.

Thanks, you're probably right about language of science, although I came across this: What Is Gravity? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids
And it says in part: "Gravity is the force by which a planet or other body draws objects toward its center. The force of gravity keeps all of the planets in orbit around the sun." So being that I am not a scientist and I am not into debating about too many terms, somehow I think if I climb a tree and fall off the tree, I'll be "forced" to the ground because of?? gravity?? anyway, have a nice day, and no, I'm not too interested right now if what and how Einstein and his associates now and then were figuring.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, gravity isn’t force.

Gravity is acceleration in which a smaller body of mass is attracted and move to a more massive body. Acceleration is a measurement of change in velocity over time.

Force is when you have mass and acceleration together.

This force, relating to gravity, is known as “gravitation” or “gravitational force”.

That’s the Newtonian description of gravity and gravitation.

Einstein extended the theory on motion and gravity with Special Relativity & General Relativity.

In General Relativity, gravity is better described as curvature of spacetime. And underpinning this standard model of gravity (General Relativity), are set of mathematical equations, known as Einstein’s field equations.

You need to understand the language of physics.

Plus, the more I look at it, the more astounding it becomes that someone's body would be forced to the earth if it falls off a building, for example. Amazing when you think about it. Unless of course there's a greater force like being attached to mechanical wings that would take it aloft (for a while anyway).

 

[YoursTrue]

@gnostic And I subsequently came across this point at www.sciencealert.com/general-relativity explaining that "The general theory of relativity (or general relativity for short) is a major building block of modern physics. It explains gravity based on the way space can 'curve', or, to put it more accurately, it associates the force of gravity with the changing geometry of space-time."
So I can only guess that gravity has a force, and some say it is not a force.
What Is The General Theory of Relativity?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Plus, the more I look at it, the more astounding it becomes that someone's body would be forced to the earth if it falls off a building, for example. Amazing when you think about it. Unless of course there's a greater force like being attached to mechanical wings that would take it aloft (for a while anyway).

I'm a little confused? Are you denying gravity or claiming some explanation for it contrary to what we understand?