Shroud of Turin is from first AD.

[ElishaElijah]

Well yeah, your first organism made it all by itself in a puddle? What came first the organs, blood, body, brain? You’re saying this happened over billions of years and also out of this organism, plants, bacteria, viruses and impossible yet you believe it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well yeah, your first organism made it all by itself in a puddle? What came first the organs, blood, body, brain? You’re saying this happened over billions of years and also out of this organism, plants, bacteria, viruses and impossible yet you believe it.

No, it appears to have arisen by natural means. That is not "making itself". Many of the questions of "how could it have happened" have been answered. Life, even the simplest of life, and the example that you gave was far from simple, is rather complex.

Do you what strategy scientists use to solve complex problems? They tend to break it down into different parts. For one thing, life did not have to start out "fully formed". For example when it comes to life some parts of it have already been shown to form naturally and can be replicated. The very building blocks of life were once claimed to come only from life and that was shown not to be the case in the 1950's. At one point creationists argued "abiogenesis is impossible since you need amino acids made by life to have life form". Then that was shown not to be the case. Now the fact that we do not need life to haver amino acids does not "prove abiogenesis" . It only shows that argument against it had failed.

We have seen that in objection after objection. The one main remaining questions is "how exactly could the first RNA have formed?" Are you betting that scientists will never find the answer for that?

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, it appears to have arisen by natural means. That is not "making itself". Many of the questions of "how could it have happened" have been answered. Life, even the simplest of life, and the example that you gave was far from simple, is rather complex.

Do you what strategy scientists use to solve complex problems? They tend to break it down into different parts. For one thing, life did not have to start out "fully formed". For example when it comes to life some parts of it have already been shown to form naturally and can be replicated. The very building blocks of life were once claimed to come only from life and that was shown not to be the case in the 1950's. At one point creationists argued "abiogenesis is impossible since you need amino acids made by life to have life form". Then that was shown not to be the case. Now the fact that we do not need life to haver amino acids does not "prove abiogenesis" . It only shows that argument against it had failed.

We have seen that in objection after objection. The one main remaining questions is "how exactly could the first RNA have formed?" Are you betting that scientists will never find the answer for that?

And that’s the point with science…the wording is this fact “could have”, “may have”, “possibly” etc. These are then taken as truth and facts when they are not.

 

[Sheldon]

Science has changed and keeps changing its view, you take what science says as a fact and then those supposed facts are shown to be false and then the excuses how great science is and is always improving.

None of that makes scientific facts subjective beliefs, you don't seem to know what a fact is, but they're not absolutes. Only religions cling to obviously false ideas, because it started with the false notion they were absolutes.

Same with evolution, mix a little bit of truth and add a whole lot of nonsense.

You've certainly mastered the creationists ability for the latter anyway, but not the former sadly, as this woeful display amply and unequivocally proves.

You laugh at my example

They are literally laughable, I am not culpable for that, and I wouldn't laugh if you had showed any interest at all in learning the actual scientific facts, instead of the cartoon creationist version of them you have been indoctrinated to believe are true.

you believe a simple organism over billions of years turned into all the diversity of life we have here.

Of course, I have no choice since it is an objective scientific fact, supported by all the overwhelming scientific evidence. Derived from over 162 years of global scrutiny, and not just from science either, the RCC has long since understood it is futile to deny it, even with all their resources to challenge it. Unlike you and other creationist, I don't cherry pick which scientific facts to accept, out of sheer bias.

 

[Sheldon]

And that’s the point with science…the wording is this fact “could have”, “may have”, “possibly” etc. These are then taken as truth and facts when they are not.

Nope still not true. You do know what the word fact means right? A scientific fact is something that is known to be true, in other words there is an overwhelming global consensus among scientists the idea is true, correct or accurate, most specifically scientists who have the necessary expertise and knowledge in those fields of study. More importantly species evolution, like all scientific ideas, must be falsifiable, and yet after over 162 years of global scrutiny it remains an accepted scientific theory and fact. Science rewards people at least as much for falsifying ideas, as it does for validating them. Anyone who falsified something like species evolution would reset the field of biology back to naught, they could write their own ticket as far as science was concerned, that's without the approbation they'd get from those who support unevidenced superstitions that it challenges.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that’s the point with science…the wording is this fact “could have”, “may have”, “possibly” etc. These are then taken as truth and facts when they are not.

No, unlike religious beliefs scientists have to be honest. There are often more than one way that things could have happened. We do have something that you do not have, and that is evidence.

Have you ever believed that someone a trial was fair when someone was found guilty? Then when it comes to the sciences when something has the status of a well accepted scientific theory then by the same standards you would need to accept that.

As I said, there are still some serious questions for abiogenesis. There is strong evidence for it but we are not sure which path it took. You on the other hand believe in magic, and there is no reliable evidence for that at all.

 

[Sheldon]

Well yeah, your first organism made it all by itself in a puddle?

No I have literally never made a claim remotely like this, and nor does science claim this is a fact, it also has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, you are talking about the origins of life. Conflating these two is a well used creationist canard, but nothing to do with science.

What came first the organs, blood, body, brain?

If you want to understand species evolution, and it is a vast subject, then I have on multiple occasions linked the talkorigins website, which has a vast database of some of the objective scientific evidence that supports species evolution.

You’re saying this happened over billions of years and also out of this organism, plants, bacteria, viruses and impossible yet you believe it.

I am saying nothing, species evolution is an accepted scientific fact.

<CITATION>

"Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity."

"The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own."

"In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."

"In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The brief also stated that the term "creation science" as used by the law embodied religious dogma, and that "teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education". This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign a petition up to that point. According to anthropologists Almquist and Cronin, the brief is the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."

 

[Subduction Zone]

What came first the organs, blood, body, brain?

I missed this question. Clearly the "body" came first. Our very early ancestors were single celled critters (a highly technical biological term). They were all body. Specialized organs next, but not highly specialized. Blood would have been next, but it would not have evolved until after multicellular life arose. We can still see simple multicellular life that does not have "blood" today. And then last "brain". And when the first "brain" existed would be hard to say. A brain like we have would have had to follow the evolution of nerves.

I am sure you could get a better explanation from a biologist, but these are not hard questions to answer.

 

[Sheldon]

I missed this question. Clearly the "body" came first. Our very early ancestors were single celled critters (a highly technical biological term). They were all body. Specialized organs next, but not highly specialized. Blood would have been next, but it would not have evolved until after multicellular life arose. We can still see simple multicellular life that does not have "blood" today. And then last "brain". And when the first "brain" existed would be hard to say. A brain like we have would have had to follow the evolution of nerves.

I am sure you could get a better explanation from a biologist, but these are not hard questions to answer.

890-million-year-old sponge fossil may be the earliest animal yet found. A set of curious fossils may be ancient sponges, which would make them the oldest fossilized animals ever found.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I missed this question. Clearly the "body" came first. Our very early ancestors were single celled critters (a highly technical biological term). They were all body. Specialized organs next, but not highly specialized. Blood would have been next, but it would not have evolved until after multicellular life arose. We can still see simple multicellular life that does not have "blood" today. And then last "brain". And when the first "brain" existed would be hard to say. A brain like we have would have had to follow the evolution of nerves.

I am sure you could get a better explanation from a biologist, but these are not hard questions to answer.

All the questions are easy to answer, they just don’t work when applied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

890-million-year-old sponge fossil may be the earliest animal yet found. A set of curious fossils may be ancient sponges, which would make them the oldest fossilized animals ever found.

And I was thinking of saying that sponges could have been the earliest of animals. There is no need for "blood" because the water carrying their food flows through them. but that did cause me to read up more on sponges. As I said they are simple animals, but they can and do reproduce sexually. Trigger warning, these perverts are hermaphrodites, but at least most of them have the decency to be only one sex at a time:

Welcome to CK-12 Foundation | CK-12 Foundation

 

[Subduction Zone]

All the questions are easy to answer, they just don’t work when applied.

What do you mean by that? Of course they "work".

It is your beliefs that can be shown not to work. You are the one that repeatedly claims that God is a liar and then try to deny it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That’s a cool story but if you’re an atheist then your starting point is you have nothing. This explanation is your religious belief. Yet even starting from your organism it’s impossible to get to the Creation reality we live in today from there, this is a story you make up and use billions of years which cannot be verified or duplicated.

We start with the singularity. I already outlined the sequence of events leading from then to now as a series of evolutions leading up to civilization and technology. It's not only not impossible for life to have emerged from chemistry and then evolved, it's correct.

You keep objecting, but I guess that must be for your own peace of mind in the face of modern knowledge that contradicts ancient beliefs. It's essential for you that the science be wrong, and so for you, it is. But for others not seeing the world through the eyes of supernatural creationism, people who have no need to create a personal reality, there is no need or reason to do that. They can simply look at the science and confirm that it is correct for themselves.

Science has changed and keeps changing its view, you take what science says as a fact and then those supposed facts are shown to be false and then the excuses how great science is and is always improving.

No scientific fact has ever been shown to be false. Pure water still freezes and 0 deg C. Entropy still increases in closed systems. The speed of light is still about 300,000 km/sec. Man still has 23 pairs of chromosomes.

Some narratives accounting for those facts have been improved, such as explaining observed celestial motions in terms of a solar system rather than a central earth, or the addition of relativity theory to gravitational science, or the removal of the steady state hypothesis from contention with the discovery of universal expansion, or the addition of punctuated equilibrium to evolutionary theory. None of these are examples of science being false. Nor is the excusing of place holders that weren't necessary, such as phlogiston and the ether. Nor is exposing frauds like the Piltdown man.

The fact that science evolves and scripture does not is not a virtue of scripture of a flaw of science. Science is improving. The errors of scripture were frozen in time as soon as they wrote them down (scripture means writing as in a movie script or an inscription) and declared the writing the infallible words of a deity.

you believe a simple organism over billions of years turned into all the diversity of life we have here.

Yes, because that's what happened. You would believe it, too, if you had learned the science and critical thinking skills, without which, you just can't know what those who did do those things can know. You can only call them wrong guesses, but you're like a student who got marked down for a wrong answer on a math test who is unaware that there are methods for being correct mathematically, and who says to the teacher when he misses a power series problem, "That's just your opinion, and it's impossible. There's no way to add an infinite number of parts and get a finite total."

You can concoct any story you want, call it science or whatever but you cannot duplicate or get your theory to work

Except the theories are working fine. You remind me of somebody who says a car doesn't start, and then somebody starts it and drives off. He calls a car broken that one can observe run well, and continues to say it won't start as it's being driven off. It's an interesting approach to navigating reality.

You also remind me of a scene from Catch 22. Doc Daneeka fears flying, and so Yossarian lists him on flight manifestos of flights he's not on, including the one McWatt commits suicide flying into a mountain. People think Doc is dead, but he's standing there beside them insisting that he's still alive. But the flight book says he must be dead, so they don't even look at him or answer him. Some people try to make reality conform to their beliefs rather than the other way around, hold beliefs that conform with evidence.

What came first the organs, blood, body, brain?

Why do you ask when you can just Google? Moreover, as with your insistence that science observe the past or recreate it in the present, the answers to these questions are irrelevant to the question of the validity of the theory of biological evolution, which doesn't attempt to answer such questions. It provides mechanisms for getting from the first living population to the present tree of life, but not pathways.

You’re saying this happened over billions of years and also out of this organism, plants, bacteria, viruses and impossible yet you believe it.

I've already explained that this is settled science outside of creationist circles. Nobody else is arguing with the scientific community. When you call something impossible that is not known to be impossible, it reflects on you, not reality.

 

[ElishaElijah]

We start with the singularity. I already outlined the sequence of events leading from then to now as a series of evolutions leading up to civilization and technology. It's not only not impossible for life to have emerged from chemistry and then evolved, it's correct.

You keep objecting, but I guess that must be for your own peace of mind in the face of modern knowledge that contradicts ancient beliefs. It's essential for you that the science be wrong, and so for you, it is. But for others not seeing the world through the eyes of supernatural creationism, people who have no need to create a personal reality, there is no need or reason to do that. They can simply look at the science and confirm that it is correct for themselves.



No scientific fact has ever been shown to be false. Pure water still freezes and 0 deg C. Entropy still increases in closed systems. The speed of light is still about 300,000 km/sec. Man still has 23 pairs of chromosomes.

Some narratives accounting for those facts have been improved, such as explaining observed celestial motions in terms of a solar system rather than a central earth, or the addition of relativity theory to gravitational science, or the removal of the steady state hypothesis from contention with the discovery of universal expansion, or the addition of punctuated equilibrium to evolutionary theory. None of these are examples of science being false. Nor is the excusing of place holders that weren't necessary, such as phlogiston and the ether. Nor is exposing frauds like the Piltdown man.

The fact that science evolves and scripture does not is not a virtue of scripture of a flaw of science. Science is improving. The errors of scripture were frozen in time as soon as they wrote them down (scripture means writing as in a movie script or an inscription) and declared the writing the infallible words of a deity.



Yes, because that's what happened. You would believe it, too, if you had learned the science and critical thinking skills, without which, you just can't know what those who did do those things can know. You can only call them wrong guesses, but you're like a student who got marked down for a wrong answer on a math test who is unaware that there are methods for being correct mathematically, and who says to the teacher when he misses a power series problem, "That's just your opinion, and it's impossible. There's no way to add an infinite number of parts and get a finite total."



Except the theories are working fine. You remind me of somebody who says a car doesn't start, and then somebody starts it and drives off. He calls a car broken that one can observe run well, and continues to say it won't start as it's being driven off. It's an interesting approach to navigating reality.

You also remind me of a scene from Catch 22. Doc Daneeka fears flying, and so Yossarian lists him on flight manifestos of flights he's not on, including the one McWatt commits suicide flying into a mountain. People think Doc is dead, but he's standing there beside them insisting that he's still alive. But the flight book says he must be dead, so they don't even look at him or answer him. Some people try to make reality conform to their beliefs rather than the other way around, hold beliefs that conform with evidence.



Why do you ask when you can just Google? Moreover, as with your insistence that science observe the past or recreate it in the present, the answers to these questions are irrelevant to the question of the validity of the theory of biological evolution, which doesn't attempt to answer such questions. It provides mechanisms for getting from the first living population to the present tree of life, but not pathways.



I've already explained that this is settled science outside of creationist circles. Nobody else is arguing with the scientific community. When you call something impossible that is not known to be impossible, it reflects on you, not reality.

Critical thinking skills show me that when I look at the world we live in operate in, compare your scientific view to the Biblical account as well as my own experience and knowledge of God it’s obvious
that life, this world and universe were Created by God and didn’t come from a theoretical view of evolution from the Big Bang and primordial soup scenario.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Critical thinking skills show me that when I look at the world we live in operate in, compare your scientific view to the Biblical account as well as my own experience and knowledge of God it’s obvious
that life, this world and universe were Created by God and didn’t come from a theoretical view of evolution from the Big Bang and primordial soul scenario.

Please try to justify this with you "critical thinking skills".

 

[ElishaElijah]

I've already explained that this is settled science outside of creationist circles. Nobody else is arguing with the scientific community. When you call something impossible that is not known to be impossible, it reflects on you, not reality.

Your scenario is impossible, the theory you are so sure of hasn’t been replicated anywhere in the Universe or on Earth. Again you are saying billions of years as a justification when if you thought about how fragile life is to begin with you can clearly see that life could not possibly happen like you believe.
The only things I’ve seen that multiply like you are suggesting are the things that kill and destroy life like cancer and viruses.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead

I wouldn’t trust Moses either since all of the generation died in the desert having never experienced what they were promised.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your scenario is impossible, the theory you are so sure of hasn’t been replicated anywhere in the Universe or on Earth. Again you are saying billions of years as a justification when if you thought about how fragile life is to begin with you can clearly see that life could not possibly happen like you believe.
The only things I’ve seen that multiply like you are suggesting are the things that kill and destroy life like cancer and viruses.

Which theory do you think is impossible and why? Remember, you just claimed to have critical thinking skills.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Critical thinking skills show me that when I look at the world we live in operate in, compare your scientific view to the Biblical account as well as my own experience and knowledge of God it’s obvious that life, this world and universe were Created by God and didn’t come from a theoretical view of evolution from the Big Bang and primordial soup scenario.

With all due respect, you've never developed critical thinking skills. Critical thought is constrained by the rules of reason, the violations of which are called logical fallacies. Critical thinking teaches one how to construct sound arguments and to recognize the sound argument of others, or to identify the fallacies in unsound arguments.

the theory you are so sure of hasn’t been replicated anywhere in the Universe or on Earth

If you are still referring to evolution or abiogenesis, it likely is occurring everywhere in the universe where it is possible. It's not possible to occur a second time on earth, which is no longer a prebiotic environment, and replication would take another several billion year. You objection is irrelevant. Think about its application in detective work. Do you require the detective to recreate the murder? Of course not. It's not possible. Do you require him to observe the past. Once again, no, because it's not possible. Nor is it necessary. He examines what exists in the present to understand the past. Even CCTV footage of the past exists in the present and is reviewed in the present.

Again you are saying billions of years as a justification when if you thought about how fragile life is to begin with you can clearly see that life could not possibly happen like you believe.

I see the opposite. Life almost certainly didn't originate with an intelligent designer, therefore by default very probably arose via naturalisitic abiogenesis. Life is like any other physical process - it occurs every time the conditions are right for it to occur. Every time water hits a certain temperature, it freezes. Every time an apple breaks its connection to the twig and can fall to the earth, it does. Every time something combustible is combined with oxygen and a spark, it burns. Every time a cloud can discharge lightning, it does. That's how nature works, here on earth and everywhere else. Extrapolating from these, every planet or moon with the conditions necessary for life to form will form life. Far from being impossible, it is likely inevitable and has occurred countless times given the number of solar systems in the universe.

And life is not as fragile as you think. The life of an individual organism may be fragile, but life considered collectively is surprisingly hardy, having been found in some seemingly very unlikely niches. Have you heard of extremophiles?

Your scenario is impossible

Nothing can be said to be impossible until it has been shown to be impossible. You haven't tried to do that. Instead, you use incredulity and ignorantiam fallacies. The former are of the form that the world and life look too complex (or fragile in your case) to have evolved naturalistically, so they didn't, ergo God. The second is of the form that if you can't answer all my questions or repeat the evolution, it didn't happen, ergo God.

You also commit special pleading fallacies frequently, having a double standard for what you require of science and religion before belief. Virtually every criticism you make of science applies to what you believe such as nobody saw it.

The only things I’ve seen that multiply like you are suggesting are the things that kill and destroy life like cancer and viruses.

You've never learned the science. Why would what you've seen or know be a standard for what's knowable or known.

Life is multiplying all around you. It's not just cancer cells that multiply. Your blood cell precursors, for example, are a very active population unless you are unfortunate enough to develop a disease that makes it otherwise, and they not only don't kill, they are essential to fighting infection, delivering oxygen to the tissues and removing CO2, and blood clotting. You wouldn't be expected to know that unless you had studied it, and arguments based in an very incomplete understanding of the subject matter are necessarily going to be flawed.

 

[ElishaElijah]

With all due respect, you've never developed critical thinking skills. Critical thought is constrained by the rules of reason, the violations of which are called logical fallacies. Critical thinking teaches one how to construct sound arguments and to recognize the sound argument of others, or to identify the fallacies in unsound arguments.

Then at the final exam we will see what grade we got.