SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Actually they are tied together .
Here is an animation of what evolution could not produce even in billions of years .
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The circular reasoning of Evolution and billions of years believers.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Here is an animation of what evolution could not produce even in billions of years .
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it doesn't. And you forgot that I refuted your God last night.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Evolution starts the theory at the replicators, since this point in time, offers a good place for change from a solid base state, with evolution about ongoing changes from other base states. The problem is this starting point leaves out Abiogenesis, which we know had to happen before the replicators. Nobody will deny that.
Data is left out, to fit a theory, that purposely starts late and is not complete. This is no different from the gods of dice and card saying "let there be replicators and like magic there was evolution". This arbitrary starting point is not there for science fact, but for intellectual convenience. The fact is that starting point; replicators, also had a starting point, that will be describe by Abiogenesis, some day.
The theoretical analogy would be like meeting a new person at work and getting to know them for a many years. However, since you both stay professional at work, and do not socialize after work, like evolution, you will start the clock of inference and deduction, about them, not at their birth, but when you started to work together, as though that person magically appeared just for you; poof!
From that work starting point, you may draw the wrong conclusion about many things, since you need to ignore their first 25 years of life development; abiogenesis. This is why the model in still stuck using casino science and math. That approach allow you to fudge and coverup the incomplete and late t=0, time line of the theory.
A better theory would start from scratch, so it does not become dogmatic, like a science religion. The magic poof assumption into fully functional replicators at t=0, sounds like genesis mythology. This explains why evolution is the most combative area of science in terms of a war with religion. It is a religious war. Real science sees the t=0 of the replicators as starting too late, to be a sound long term science theory. Once Abiogenesis is done, the current theory of evolution, will be mothballed, since other factors will need to be added to get the full picture, before replicators. I did not hang onto this sinking ship, but I swam to an island to build a new boat.
I took a water approach to evolution, since water is needed for everything life does. It can't be replaced by any other solvent. Water is the continuous matrix within life, with the strongest secondary bonding forces. The organics are immersed in water and the water imposes its hydrogen bonding will, onto the secondary bonding of the organics; pack proteins and induce the conformation of the DNA.
Water is the eternal bookend of life. Water is the same now, as before the precursors of life started to appear for abiogenesis. The organics needed to change, to cooperate with the hydrogen bonding potentials of the timeless water and the second law. Carbon is well suited for this life of change, being able to form four primary bonds with many other atoms and even polymerize.
The vector of evolution is driven by the second law, with water forcing carbon to change and become more and more complex, with water always staying the same. Water is the terminal product of combustion of hydrogen and oxygen and is very stable, with very low energy in its primary bonds. It is the secondary or hydrogen bonds of water that can create a connected hydrogen bonding matrix that can move information and allow the integrated state called life.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Good news I found more than one.
From DNA to protein
This 3D animation shows how proteins are made in the cell from the information in the DNA code.
Good news I found more than one.
From DNA to protein
This 3D animation shows how proteins are made in the cell from the information in the DNA code.www.yourgenome.org
Spam away
You would likely be horrified to know what it is that you have actually "proved." Nothing about any aspect of reality apart from you. All I've learned from you is what you're like and how you think, and maybe what motivates you to behave like this on the Internet. It confirms what I've learned elsewhere about the cost that unchecked belief by faith can have on a life. I think you'd have been happier with a humanist worldview. You seem to have an unquenchable thirst for something that keeps you repeating yourself in an unfriendly environment. How nice for you if you could just leave all of that, but you feel a need to do this anyway, like compulsive hand washing.
This is from atheist firebrand Pat Condell:
"It must be quite galling for religious people to see atheists like me going about their business without a shred of guilt or self-loathing, and not in the least inclined to pray or to do penance of any kind, and not in the slightest bit worried about any form of eternal punishment. I have to admit if I was religious, I'd probably think to myself: "How come I've got all this weight on my shoulders while these bums are getting a free ride?"
No, YOU have no answer. You don't understand the science and have accepted unfalsifiable religious dogma as fact when it is not even knowledge.
It's not for you to know. You chose faith. Others chose an education and critical thinking skills. They learned what you walked away from. If you were half your age like I was when I left that religious cocoon, and if you still had some critical thinking skills remaining sufficient to recognize that the religion was not going to make good on its promises, you'd have had the tools and incentive to do that and get your feet back on the ground. But the window for that eventually expires just as it does with smoking. There are some who could have quit either religion or cigarettes thirty years ago, but for whom neither is any longer an option.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
But what happens when you die and find out you are wrong?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
the best thing that can happen is that the person is resurrected and is happy about it. and thanks God. Isaiah chapter 25 expressed this, "He will swallow up death forever, And the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will wipe away the tears from all faces."
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What happens when you did and you find out that you are wrong. Or even more likely. what happens if you die and that is it?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The same thing that will happen when you die and find out that you were wrong about any of the thousands of other religions.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh my! You don't even know what "falsifiable" means. Here is a hint, you just implied that your beliefs are garbage.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
My MI and the LNC proofs are still unrefuted.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wrong, especially your MI since you admitted that it was refuted.
You refuted them.
Well you will never find out if you are wrong.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
"falsifiable"? Do you understand how that isn't the same as "falsified"?
Atheism isn't a claim, so there's nothing there to falsify.
How about you?
I don't expect an afterlife, and if there is one, I don't expect to be judged, and if I am, I expect it to be more in accordance with humanist values than Abrahamic dogma, because that's the evolved form of moral and intellectual thought. We came from the one to the other. We're replacing faith with empiricism and substituting rational ethics based in the well-being of sentient creatures for received morals. I would expect judgmental creators to expect that we utilized the gifts we were born with - the faculties of reason and conscience.
How do you think you'd fare there? Probably pretty well. Such judges would be expected to be kind and constructive, and would likely expect that many of us would be seduced by isms like Christianity. Such minds wouldn't be into punishment.
But in the off chance that you are held accountable for that choice, I'll be there beside you pleading your case. You'll likely be understanding it in Christian terms and fearing for your soul, but I'll be your advocate.
How about a few pop culture references (three well-known songs here, all with the same message; can you identify them?): "When the night, has come and the land is dark; if the sky above you grows dark and full of clouds, just call out my name; I will comfort you, I'll take your part"
Astrophile
Active Member
The Book of Job was written about 2500 years ago (more precisely, between the 7th and 3rd centuries BCE) - Book of Job - Wikipedia , not over 3500 years ago. Where, in the book itself, does it say when it was written?
Anaximander (ca. 610-ca. 546 BCE) said much the same thing about the Earth hanging on nothing as the Book of Job does, and at about the same time. According to Anaximander and the Nature of Science by Carlo Rovelli (Penguin Books, 2023), Anaximander thought that 'the Earth is a body of finite dimensions floating in space. It doesn't fall because there is no particular direction towards which it might fall. It is "dominated by no other body."' Perhaps the author of Job got his ideas from the same source as Anaximander.
Anaximander did not think that the Earth was supported by a turtle or Atlas, nor did he know, as we do, that the Earth, far from hanging on nothing, is in orbit around the Sun.