Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[NoorNoor]

Yes.



Are you kidding me? Good grief, it's like watching a person surf and say there's no evidence of the ocean. The many oceans, deserts and forests aren't different environments to you?

We have life adapted to live in saltwater. Life adapted to live on land. Life adapted to live in freshwater. Life adapted to live with little water. Life adapted to live in extremely cold environments. Life adapted to live in extremely hot environments. Life adapted to live in near-pitch darkness. Life adapted to live in dry climates. Life adapted to live in toxic environments. Life adapted to solely live inside of other organisms.

That last one should give some interesting perspective. If you, NoorNoor, were a symbiotic bacteria living inside a human stomach, you might argue that the human body is so fine tuned to support the life of your kind. Hell, you might still argue that if you were pathogenic rather than symbiotic. What, you think God designed the Sahara thinking "hmmm.... yeah, this is a good environment for those camels. They got those hump things, so better design their environment with little water. That way I can use the extra water for the dolphins and penguins who are tetrapods entering the environment of fish."

You think you can live the life of a camel? You think you can live inside of another organism, NoorNoor? Could you live underwater? What if the water is over 120 degrees Celsius?

Jeez, it's the same bs with you guys. You don't think. You don't want to think. You ignore what's right in front of your face, and I'm sure you're gonna reply with some convoluted explanation that somehow these are all the same environments and they're all perfectly tuned for each and all life, and that this all somehow meshes with your worldview, and blah blah blah... yada yada yada God is great and what-not.

Thanks for your analysis but you are not following. We have been talking about carbon based life vs. other types that assumed to evolve or exist in different environments.

 

[Valjean]

"Imagine a puddle, waking up in the morning and examining its surroundings [a brief pause here, to let the audience grapple with this rather odd image]. The puddle would say, "Well this depression in the ground here, it's really quite comfortable, isn't it? It's just as wide as I am, it's just as deep as I am, It's the same shape as I am...in fact, it conforms exactly to me, in every detail. The depression in the ground, it must have been made just for me."
-- Douglas Adams

This approach puts effect before cause.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Thanks for your analysis but you are not following. We have been talking about carbon based life vs. other types that assumed to evolve or exist in different environments.

Right... so in order to be classified as "different", an environment must not have carbon in it? Oh, but the Arctic and Sahara are totally the same because they both got carbon. Yeah, okay.

 

[NoorNoor]

Different environments do generate different sorts. Anaerobic species still exist, and there are all sorts of extremophiles adapted to environmental extremes.
Only carbon based species exist because carbon is so versatile. The original life forms adopted this strategy and any other -- if there were any others -- just couldn't catch up.

Wankel engines are, theoretically, simpler and more efficient than piston engines, but because piston engines had already been developed and refined before car manufacturers tried introducing Wankels, the design just fizzled out. It couldn't catch up.

Carbon is not versatile. Carbon makes up much less than 1% of earth's mass.

 

[Valjean]

I didn't say "common." I'm talking about chemical versatility in compounding and reactions.Nothing beats it.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Carbon is not versatile. Carbon makes up much less than 1% of earth's mass.

Life is found in less than 1% of Earth's mass.

Also, abundance isn't the same thing as versatility. Carbon is chemically versatile in the sense of how many compounds it can comprise.

 

[NoorNoor]

Right... so in order to be classified as "different", an environment must not have carbon in it? Oh, but the Arctic and Sahara are totally the same because they both got carbon. Yeah, okay.

Not the environment, the life type itself

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Not the environment, the life type itself

Uhh yes, the environments. You said there's no evidence of different life forms adapted to different kinds of environments. Don't be going back on your word now. The least you can do is admit you were wrong rather than pretending you never said it.

 

[NoorNoor]

I didn't say "common." I'm talking about chemical versatility in compounding and reactions.Nothing beats it.

Then it's not about what's available/abundant in an environment but about what is suited for life

 

[Valjean]

Exactly!

 

[NoorNoor]

Then what life require would be very particular

 

[NoorNoor]

Uhh yes, the environments. You said there's no evidence of different life forms adapted to different kinds of environments. Don't be going back on your word now. The least you can do is admit you were wrong rather than pretending you never said it.

You are not following, we are not talking specifically about an environment without carbon but specifically about the possibility of different type of life other than the carbon based live. All what you described (arctic, sahara, oceans, etc) is not actually individual environments but components of the same one environment on our planet. This is not what we have been talking about

 

[NoorNoor]

"Imagine a puddle, waking up in the morning and examining its surroundings [a brief pause here, to let the audience grapple with this rather odd image]. The puddle would say, "Well this depression in the ground here, it's really quite comfortable, isn't it? It's just as wide as I am, it's just as deep as I am, It's the same shape as I am...in fact, it conforms exactly to me, in every detail. The depression in the ground, it must have been made just for me."
-- Douglas Adams

This approach puts effect before cause.

A puddle wouldn't be very particular about what it needs but a complex live model is.

 

[Valjean]

Then what life require would be very particular

Of course. What anything requires is very particular. What's required to bake a cake or manufacture brake fluid is very particular.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

You are not following, we are not talking specifically about an environment without carbon but specifically about the possibility of different type of life other than the carbon based live. All what you described (arctic, sahara, oceans, etc) is not actually individual environments but components of the same one environment on our planet. This is not what we have been talking about

I don't see why that matters. In the end, the vast majority of environments in the universe aren't suitable for life. It's not enough for carbon to simply be present in an environment. There are other external requirements not found everywhere in the universe.

 

[Valjean]

A puddle wouldn't be very particular about what it needs but a complex live model is.

My point is, it inverts cause and effect.

 

[NoorNoor]

Life is found in less than 1% of Earth's mass.

Also, abundance isn't the same thing as versatility. Carbon is chemically versatile in the sense of how many compounds it can comprise.

You are correct, abundance isn't the same thing as versatile. carbon mass is relatively very small in our environment but it's specifically suited for life. Live depends on what is suited not what is just available/abundant

 

[NoorNoor]

I don't see why that matters. In the end, the vast majority of environments in the universe aren't suitable for life. It's not enough for carbon to simply be present in an environment. There are other external requirements not found everywhere in the universe.

Correct, not only carbon but complex particular criteria and the physical laws itself are fine tuned to allow for this particular criteria to exist.

 

[McBell]

Why would you call it an assumption? Do you know that the carbon based live model is the only model known to exist? Do you know that life on earth is the only known life in the universe? So far, Scientist where not able to find evidence for any live form on any other planet. Unless you have some different info unknown to mainstream scientists, then this is not an assumption. This is a fact, at least till now.

what does that have to do with your original claim:

life can't just evolve in any environment but depends on very specific criteria​

What do you mean boldly claimed? There is a broad """agreement""" among physicist and cosmologists that the universe in several respects is 'fine tuned' for life. Stephen Hawking stated that the laws of science contains fundamental numbers and the remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.

Then show the evidence.
and no, merely claiming something is not evidence.

Its not wishful thinking. We have been discussing the following points. Many scientists acknowledged that these specific points do imply a creator.
- a creation point at the big bang
- very particular life model/fine tuned universe.

Again, you present nothing but bold empty claims...

Read about the fine tuned universe. the wishful thinking is the thinking of those who ignore all examples of intelligent design in our universe.

cannot ignore that which is never presented....
Or are you planning to present something other than bold empty claims?

Read a little about the fine tuned universe. After you read, you will see for yourself whether it's an empty claim.

you do an awful lot of talking about "fine tuning" but you do not actually present any of your claimed evidence.

Why is that?

 

[NoorNoor]

what does that have to do with your original claim:

life can't just evolve in any environment but depends on very specific criteria​

Then show the evidence.
and no, merely claiming something is not evidence.


Again, you present nothing but bold empty claims...


cannot ignore that which is never presented....
Or are you planning to present something other than bold empty claims?


you do an awful lot of talking about "fine tuning" but you do not actually present any of your claimed evidence.

Why is that?

You didn't read. Watch this video. It will give you a better understanding about the fine tuned universe