The begining of life

[secret2]

I am quite aware that there are various tolerances(I also had mentioned the word tolerance)for all of the things I have mentioned&that in early earth history there were most likely more extreme &/or violent&other variants regarding the things I have listed here. However, these tolerance became more stable before, after or by the time man was introduced on the earth.

Because, alas, it is the other way round. Man was able to survive BECAUSE the environment stabilized.

It doesn't matter as I seriously doubt that it has nothing to do with whats on earth. Again, Evolution is not provable&if you read my other post you might see that Ev is just a theory, one with a lot of problems.

As someone else mentioned, the arrogance is mind boggling as you are claiming that you know more than people who devote their entire career observing and experimenting.

I am fully aware of all this but the changes are now(even if they weren't before)within tolerances life can survive with.

Because, alas, it is the other way round. Man was able to survive BECAUSE the environment stabilized.

Again, Evolution is just a theory that can never be proved. Well, its either Darwin's cell geniuses or an Intelligent Designer is responsible.

A scientific theory is not "JUST" a theory. Read up on the basic sh.it before posting. And scientific theories are never "proved", they stand as long as they are not (yet) falsified.

Well if a land area the size of Africa disappeared or one that size appeared in the middle of Pacific ocean it would cause some major changes that might not allow higher life-forms to have a good environment to live in, especially if a couple of other things I mention here were outside tolerances for the survival of higher life-forms or had other differences.

Then dolphins might rule the world. That human came out as the (temporary) dominant species is a historical coincidence, not a destined fate.

Yes, but much of the soil around the world isn't so caustic &/or they have other toxic mixes that they are not conducive to the survival of life. Of course, human have the capacity to ruin it sooner than later.

What is toxic to you and me is honey to some other lifeforms. Avocado is poisonous to most species. Your anthrocentrism is abominable.

Except its only a couple of inches a century if I remember correctly so it will be a long time before changes have major effect on earth.

Right, and going forward after a while in the future the Earth would not be habitable anymore. So your "everything just right" argument would defeat itself.

Well, at least its not located in an unstable or more dense area of our galaxy where bigger problems would be more frequent.

Because, alas, it is the other way round. Man was able to survive BECAUSE the environment stabilized.

Its more based on what ifs&sure educated guesses&depending on who is doing the calculating, various assumptions. But, again, this is concerning billions of yrs old cold cases that we didn't see take place, so what happened can never be proved by man.

Your guess is anything but educated. And to say that "what happened can never be proved by man" is a plain lie, considering the arsenal of tools and tests at our disposal.

If I didn't know an Intelligent Designer was involved I would probably be joining you as to the absurdity of using some types of statistical calculations regarding many of the issues I raise.

Apparently you failed to see the point raised by the example.

 

[Ouroboros]

Voice crying,

So basically, you said nothing changes, and I said it does, and you said you knew that, and therefor you're still right?

 

[voice crying]

Actually, cells can sense chemicals ouside their membrane that tell them quite a bit about the outside world, like the presence of other cells, whether those cells are supposed to be there, whether hose cells are healthy, and so on. They can do some pretty amazing stuff with that information! The immune system uses it to controll invading organisms, an embryo uses this infromation to grow into its final shape, nerves use these sensors to pass signals so you can move...

Even very simple organisms can use these signals to assmble into relatively complex shapes. Check this out:
[youtube]bkVhLJLG7ug[/youtube]
John Bonner's slime mold movies - YouTube

Slime molds live as cingle-celled organisms when there is enough food, but when it becomes scarce they band together and form a stalk with a friuting body that sends slime mold spores floating on air currents to find new habitats with more food.

These are single cells, and yet they manage to find each other in the dirt, and "tell" each other what part of the fruiting body they are forming and what they need to do, all without a single concious thought! And, I might add, without divine intervention, at least in the present day

First, even a simple cell itself is very complex. DNA is just a code but its still very complex even for simple cells. DNA doesn't know nor understand what it is, why it exists, how its constructed nor does it know what a cell is nor can it understand anything about a cell or what its for. It can't know how a cell is constructed nor what a cell needs. It can't search or analyze a cell nor can it even find out what it has or doesn't have.

DNA can't decide anything nor know what a change is nor what effect a change would have let alone what a change can&can't do for itself or a cell. Things like an immune system&senses would have to already be programmed into the DNA. Again, DNA is useless w/o cells or viruses but cells can't function w/o DNA.

Cells have the same problems&limits. A cell's parts&limits must already be coded into its DNA. It can't get outside itself to observe its parts nor can it analyze itself. Anything it can do would be required to already be built into its DNA like for any pc program. Even though cells can"sense"things in its proximity for the most part it can't sense much beyond that area unless another similar cell has the capability to give it a way to reach the other cell(its still very limited). Cells having ability to chain themselves into"certain"basic shapes(again, it has to be present in their DNA)doesn't=ability to add complex organs&appendages, especially in very complex higher life-forms(such as mirror image lungs&kidneys&its connective companion parts&ability to work together).

Slime molds having built in ability to assemble into a shape for survival has to be already present in its DNA like some animals don't have to be taught to hunt, build nests or swim, etc. Some higher life-forms will work together for food&protection while others won't or can't. However, all life-forms except man live for the present. They don't spend time contemplating the future or how to make things better for their offspring. Only man has that capability.

None of the things you point to is any proof whatsoever for the theory of Evolution. Again, w/o UNCUT film starting from 1st signs of life to today Ev can never be a fact. We didn't see it take place. Therefore, the"appearance"of one species' parts in another are only more species. Thats all they can ever be. Everything reaching back billions of yrs into the past(billions of yrs old COLD cases)can never be anymore than speculation, a permanent limit for scientific research claims.

 

[secret2]

First, even a simple cell itself is very complex. DNA is just a code but its still very complex even for simple cells. DNA doesn't know nor understand what it is, why it exists, how its constructed nor does it know what a cell is nor can it understand anything about a cell or what its for. It can't know how a cell is constructed nor what a cell needs. It can't search or analyze a cell nor can it even find out what it has or doesn't have.

Complexity can and does emerge from simple algorithms.

None of the things you point to is any proof whatsoever for the theory of Evolution. Again, w/o UNCUT film starting from 1st signs of life to today Ev can never be a fact. We didn't see it take place. Therefore, the"appearance"of one species' parts in another are only more species. Thats all they can ever be. Everything reaching back billions of yrs into the past(billions of yrs old COLD cases)can never be anymore than speculation, a permanent limit for scientific research claims.

If only what is seen by our bare eyes can be regarded as facts, then you are pretty much refuting the entirety of modern science. Are you seriously an engineer?

 

[Skwim]

None of the things you point to is any proof whatsoever for the theory of Evolution.

Unlike the proof for resurrection from the dead, god(s), and angels. Because for these we have . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ah, need a little help here, vc .

 

[johnhanks]

... if you read my other post you might see that Ev is just a theory, one with a lot of problems.

You seem completely to have ignored the replies which examined these "problems" and showed them to be imaginary. And "just a theory"? Even an engineer must know that in science the status of unfalsified theory is as good as it gets.

Again, species changes within a species kind, its subsets or strains are just adaptation to environment variables, even if the result is that one can no longer mate with others within its own species kind...

And you will be aware that this inability to mate results from the population's gene pool having diverged too far from the ancestral one. Tell us, what mechanism prevents that divergence extending to become the gene pool of a different "kind"?

Just the sheer number of insect body types, features&appendages is evidence for an Intelligent Designer.

... with, notoriously, an inordinate fondness for beetles. But that apart, how intelligent was a designer who gave elaborate mouthparts to adult craneflies, which do not feed?

 

[voice crying]

Complexity can and does emerge from simple algorithms. --- If only what is seen by our bare eyes can be regarded as facts, then you are pretty much refuting the entirety of modern science. Are you seriously an engineer?

Except to make a cell(especially as complexity increases)would require at least several algorithms to take place, in extremely close proximity, in the right sequences, most likely several times. If the cell dies then the process would have to keep repeating=impossible odds. Mostly its not the facts that are in question(although sometimes it might be)rather its usually regarding the interpretation of the facts&omissions mixed with conjecture of one sort or another, etc.&its subsequent conclusions I'll answer other responses in this one post:

Got to love it when people say you don't know about something b/c you don't agree with their conclusions.

@johnhanks: A number of theories including Ev are not falsifiable. Again, you can't go back billions of yrs to test the theory(billions of yrs COLD cases). Problems with Ev are not imaginary&I don't dismiss what I know are real problems. To say Ev, a non-conscious process is capable of producing millions of incredibly diverse species is akin to claiming a blind 1 yr old can build a car although he has had no previous knowledge of one, has had no previous knowledge for any kind of related subject matters&no previous related skills or even basic skills for building anything. We know this would be impossible w/o putting him through years of training as to the concept of what a car is, what its for, how to use tools, about all the car parts&how to assemble it. Again, you'd have a better chance throwing a 1000 pages in the air&having all the pages landing in the correct order.

Again, none of these species ever existed before. Even a well-seasoned mechanic building millions of different type cars would most likely run into problems that could take long periods of time to solve. To even suggest mindless Ev to be the creator of millions of extremely diverse species is beyond comprehension, devaluing the very intelligence humans supposedly possess. Species splitting events(adaptation)are still within the same species kind(kind of reminds me[even being a little more complicated as the case may be]of having a white person refusing to date a black person b/c they're black, they're still people). They have not become an entirely different species type.

My great aunt worked with William Beebe in South America cataloging many species. She had one of the largest(if not the largest)private insect collections around. I spent many hours there as she told me many things about them. Not once did she mention Ev but it did peak my interest to pursue studying biology&Ev. Got a laugh when someone tries to critique God's work(the pot telling the potter he doesn't like what the potter did). He can make things for absolutely no reason if He wants.

@Skwim: Right, the real truth. Only one God can occupy infinity=the God of Israel=its the only position no cause need can exist&its the only position in which one can declare the end from the beginning(what the bible is about). One big catch: its only provable b/c Jesus is the only true Son of God&He wasn't talking out two nor thousands of sides of His mouth=no confusion.

Jesus couldnt do whats in the NT w/o knowing the whole OT-impossible w/o God&the NT didnt exist yet. The Apostles couldnt write the NT w/o Jesus having them remember all He did-Lk24:25-27,45. In history only Jesus said He's the way, truth&life&you cant know God w/o Him-Jn 14:6/5:39/Act4:12=the whole truth=All claimed new, other beliefs&from self-proclaimed prophets or teachers are false&godless or its all a lie=no God(knows all or He's not God)&Jesus is 1 more false teacher to ignore.

There is only one God; one Jesus, only true Son of God-Prv30:4; one Holy Spirit; one eternal truth&one Bible. Therefore, only one true interpretation is possible&that you can take to the bank. The problem is that too many people don't carefully read the Bible. True interpretation requires that every word, verse, passage, chapter&book is carefully weighed against every part of the Bible or you will have a good chance of becoming a false teacher. For good reason the Bible says, "Be careful not to go beyond what is written."=do not add or omit things=1Cor4:6.

Too many assume too many things about the Bible, have depended too much on those who came before them or their contemporaries, pastors, ministers &/or priests, most of whom skipped over Jesus' specific directions on how to rightly approach knowing God. God outsmarted us: reading a Bible(religious or not)you can't find nor rightly know Jesus&the Bible w/o His directions-Jn 5:39/10:1,7/3:3,5(Jn 14:6/2Cor3:14/Is 29:11-12=Jewish ppl can't unveil OT w/o Jesus=all gentiles can't=its why many interpretations exist&its called fiction).

Now is the time for all men to seek the real truth regardless of what they have been taught from the past, peers or others. Jesus came to&did prove the OT is true. Since the OT is true then so is the NT(everything Jesus did came from His full knowledge of the OT). Only Jesus can show you this if you are willing to let Him. The devil was with God in the beginning&is aware of His plan. He never sleeps, meaning he has had plenty of time to play his games&is smarter than man&continues honing his craft. Will you fall for his lies? Theres no 3rd covenant. The truth is complete within the OT&NT pages.

 

[johnhanks]

@johnhanks: A number of theories including Ev are not falsifiable. Again, you can't go back billions of yrs to test the theory(billions of yrs COLD cases). Problems with Ev are not imaginary&I don't dismiss what I know are real problems. To say Ev, a non-conscious process is capable of producing millions of incredibly diverse species is akin to claiming a blind 1 yr old can build a car although he has had no previous knowledge of one, has had no previous knowledge for any kind of related subject matters&no previous related skills or even basic skills for building anything. We know this would be impossible w/o putting him through years of training as to the concept of what a car is, what its for, how to use tools, about all the car parts&how to assemble it. Again, you'd have a better chance throwing a 1000 pages in the air&having all the pages landing in the correct order.

Yet again, you have nothing in your armoury here but argument from incredulity. "I cannot believe a non-conscious process can have done this, therefore it didn't".

Again, none of these species ever existed before. Even a well-seasoned mechanic building millions of different type cars would most likely run into problems that could take long periods of time to solve. To even suggest mindless Ev to be the creator of millions of extremely diverse species is beyond comprehension, devaluing the very intelligence humans supposedly possess.

And again.

Species splitting events(adaptation)are still within the same species kind(kind of reminds me[even being a little more complicated as the case may be]of having a white person refusing to date a black person b/c they're black, they're still people). They have not become an entirely different species type.

The divergences we see within human lifetimes produce new species within the same family or genus, true, but that's exactly what we should expect. I repeat my earlier question: what mechanism prevents that genetic divergence extending over many more generations to become the gene pool of a different "kind"?

Got a laugh when someone tries to critique God's work(the pot telling the potter he doesn't like what the potter did). He can make things for absolutely no reason if He wants.

Did I say I didn't "like" adult craneflies having mouthparts? I merely queried why an intelligent designer would craft elaborate mouthparts for an animal that doesn't feed. (Evolution, of course, has no problem with this - craneflies evolved from different insects whose adults did feed.)

 

[outhouse]

Problems with Ev are not imaginary

.

YOUR WRONG AGAIN.

The only problem with evolution are the religious fundementalist who keep a closed minds to the observed FACTS that have been reported.

:slap:


Your under the false impression there is a debate about the credibility of evolution. There is no deabte. Its been over for over a century.


Time for you to catch up.

 

[ruffen]

There is a significant quality difference between revelations and science. And there IS one objective truth that exists whether you believe it or not.

For example, even if you do not believe in the Theory of Relativity, or if you do not believe in a spherical Earth, your GPS receiver (which depends on both being true) will work no matter what you believe.

 

[camanintx]

It would be 1 thing if it was just 1or2 things but it took many things to get to the point that life could survive on earth:

Somewhere there is a puddle desperately searching for just the right hole for it to survive in.

 

[camanintx]

@johnhanks: A number of theories including Ev are not falsifiable. Again, you can't go back billions of yrs to test the theory(billions of yrs COLD cases).

Evolutionary theories are totally falsifiable. If tetrepods evolved from fish during the late Devonian, then we should find organisms with the features of both fish and tetrapods, and Tiktaalik roseae fits that description. If rabbits didn't evolve during the late Eocene, then we should find rabbit fossils in earlier epochs. Since we haven't found any Jurassic rabbits, the theory has not been falsified.

 

[McBell]

...=impossible odds..

Please show your math.

 

[johnhanks]

Evolutionary theories are totally falsifiable. If tetrepods evolved from fish during the late Devonian, then we should find organisms with the features of both fish and tetrapods, and Tiktaalik roseae fits that description. If rabbits didn't evolve during the late Eocene, then we should find rabbit fossils in earlier epochs. Since we haven't found any Jurassic rabbits, the theory has not been falsified.

Absolutely. If evolution is false, palaeontology should be the creationist's most powerful ally: somewhere out there should lie fossil beds with whale bones scattered among the trilobites, or T. rex caught munching on a sheep. Since many creationist organisations are well endowed with funds, it's a mystery why they're not pouring money into the search for those elusive Precambrian rabbits: find them, and you've falsified evolution at a stroke.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Its taken some time but I have my answer, which no one will believe. If you really want to know I challenge you to prove me wrong but to do so you must question everything this is how I did it. 1 + 1 does not = 2 and can never =2. What this means is that if you accept a core belief you will never solve the question. All the work has been done you just need to put the pieces together.

The reallity is that as long as you are happy with your beliefs and not causing harm to anyone else you are fine.

So do I present the big reveal or not. Someone on forums said but what if I like to search well have fun searching I did and there's still things that need to be solved and the great thing is as the years go by there will still be newer things to solve.

Gobbledygook!

 

[Iti oj]

Silly light doesn't know if it's a particle or wave!
Also I like all the animist tinge of this thread =D