"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[AV1611VET]

Science is myopic.

It is, it only recognises things for which there is evidence,

Um ... no.

That's not myopia.

Myopia is an inability to properly recognize objects far away.

Such as the inability to properly recognize Pluto for what it is; or the inability to properly recognize Thalidomide as a dangerous drug; or the inability to properly recognize Nebraska Man as a fake; or the inability to recognize God's holidays, hymns, and churches as God's holidays, hymns, and churches; etc.

Science is myopic.

 

[MasonP]

Myopia is an inability to properly recognize objects far away.

Myopic is also used to signify blinkered, synonyms include: unimaginative, uncreative, unadventurous, narrow-minded, lacking foresight, small-minded, short-term, narrow.

the inability to recognize God's holidays, hymns, and churches as God's holidays, hymns, and churches; etc.

Those were all put there by man not God, which holidays did God decide on? which hymns did God write and which churches did God build?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is myopic.

Those were all put there by man not God, which holidays did God decide on? which hymns did God write and which churches did God build?

Thanks for the QED.

 

[-57]

As I said, there was probably an ultimate essence of reality that always existed. On that we agree. This essence somehow produced everything that is. The difference between us is that I do not think this essence had to be a person, or have a mind. Do you have any evidence this essence had to have a mind?

Post 3. Life is to complicated to have evolved.

 

[-57]

That's a wonderful false dichotomy you have there...........





.

If you want to call it false....tell us why.

 

[-57]

"Nothing" is a meaningless concept in science.
Perhaps you may take the trouble to define "Nothing" for us?

Completely void of everything. I mean everything.

 

[SteveB28]

If you want to call it false....tell us why.

Very simple....there are more than TWO possibilities for the formation of our universe.

Broaden your mind.....

 

[Speedwell]

Post 3. Life is to complicated to have evolved.

Complexity with respect to molecular biology is a mathematical concept. Where's your math? Show us mathematically that any biological structure possesses a degree of complexity inaccessible to a Markov process like variation and selection.
Hint: animated cartoons and personal incredulity won't do it.

 

[USincognito]

I'm really surprised you're actually taking it this far...the video shows him cutting the bones and fitting them together in a way inwhich they were not. The video shows him commiting fraud.

Ah, Menton is still spreading the lie that Owen Lovejoy altered the pelvis to make it more human like. The thing is, Lovejoy recognized that the pelvis was contorted in an unnatural position and fixed it. Menton, as an anatomist, would know that a trained person could tell when a fossil was distorted during the preservation process. He's simply being dishonest. Beside, as this meme I've created asks, how can a Dremmel tool change a chimpanzee pelvis into a human pelvis?

 

[MasonP]

Completely void of everything. I mean everything.

Including Gods.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Post 3. Life is to complicated to have evolved.

Answered multiple times in this thread. Why do you just ignore the response and repeat the same refuted claim repeatedly?

 

[-57]

Answered multiple times in this thread. Why do you just ignore the response and repeat the same refuted claim repeatedly?

Anytime you're ready to make your point.....present it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Anytime you're ready to make your point.....present it.

Been there. Done that. Many times. Post 3 says the motor protein is complex. Nowhere does it give any evidence that God himself could not have evolved it. So you have not begun to make your point that evolution of the motor protein is impossible.

Once you agree that God could have evolved it your original statement that started this thread is defeated. It could have evolved.

Then we are left with a discussion of what are the minimum characteristics of "God" that would have been sufficient to cause the big bang and the evolution of these proteins.

 

[doubtingmerle]

present it.

As normal, this argument has gone from discussion of evolution to discussion of the origin of the Big Bang. This always seems to happen. We begin with a misunderstanding or ignorance about evolution. When we explain what evolution is and the evidence for it, believers lose interest and switch to their favorite topic, the ultimate source of the universe, the ultimate cause of everything.

The answer to that is that ultimately we don't know what was behind the Big Bang. Scientists have a good idea what happened back to about the "Plank Time", when the universe was 10^-43 seconds old. (That is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds, which is an extremely small number.) Beyond that the laws of physics as we know them break down.

So what was the ultimate cause behind it all? There was surely some guiding force behind it all, some laws of physics, some underlying nature of reality that "always" existed. I put the word "always" in quotes, because time itself loses meaning when we step beyond Plank Time, when we step outside the space time bounds of our universe. What does "time", "cause", "force", or "physics" even mean in that realm? Something was there. We don't know what.

That is where you step in and say the ultimate cause behind it all had a will, a mind, a personality, and was a personal being. But how can you know it had all these things?

But then many take it a step further and say this timeless ultimate cause stepped into the universe and flooded the whole earth, caused the earth to stop rotating so Joshua could kill more people, and commanded the Israelites to kill Amalakite babies. You are taking this way too far. How do we get from a timeless cause of the universe to a personal being to a Hebrew god who commands atrocities?

 

[Jimmy D]

As normal, this argument has gone from discussion of evolution to discussion of the origin of the Big Bang. This always seems to happen. We begin with a misunderstanding or ignorance about evolution. When we explain what evolution is and the evidence for it, believers lose interest and switch to their favorite topic, the ultimate source of the universe, the ultimate cause of everything.

The answer to that is that ultimately we don't know what was behind the Big Bang. Scientists have a good idea what happened back to about the "Plank Time", when the universe was 10^-43 seconds old. (That is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds, which is an extremely small number.) Beyond that the laws of physics as we know them break down.

So what was the ultimate cause behind it all? There was surely some guiding force behind it all, some laws of physics, some underlying nature of reality that "always" existed. I put the word "always" in quotes, because time itself loses meaning when we step beyond Plank Time, when we step outside the space time bounds of our universe. What does "time", "cause", "force", or "physics" even mean in that realm? Something was there. We don't know what.

That is where you step in and say the ultimate cause behind it all had a will, a mind, a personality, and was a personal being. But how can you know it had all these things?

But then many take it a step further and say this timeless ultimate cause stepped into the universe and flooded the whole earth, caused the earth to stop rotating so Joshua could kill more people, and commanded the Israelites to kill Amalakite babies. You are taking this way too far. How do we get from a timeless cause of the universe to a personal being to a Hebrew god who commands atrocities?

Couldn't make it up could you? Well...........

 

[MasonP]

Couldn't make it up could you? Well...........

Yes, they already have.

 

[-57]

Been there. Done that. Many times. Post 3 says the motor protein is complex. Nowhere does it give any evidence that God himself could not have evolved it. So you have not begun to make your point that evolution of the motor protein is impossible.

Once you agree that God could have evolved it your original statement that started this thread is defeated. It could have evolved.

Then we are left with a discussion of what are the minimum characteristics of "God" that would have been sufficient to cause the big bang and the evolution of these proteins.

But, God told us He didn't evolve them.

 

[MasonP]

But, God told us He didn't evolve them.

Who did God tell?

 

[doubtingmerle]

But, God told us He didn't evolve them.

Ah, so when you said life is too complicated to have evolved, you meant it actually isn't actually too complicated to have evolved, but God decided to do it a different way? Why didn't you just say what you meant and we could have avoided this thread?

What evidence do you have that the divine essence behind the existence of the universe wrote Genesis?

 

[doubtingmerle]

And so we apparently conclude this thread with nobody able to think of a reason to believe that life itself is so complex that the underlying reality of nature (nature's god) could not have caused it to evolve.