How to choose between creation and evolution.

[tas8831]

How long did it take for the first self-replicating cell to be 'formed', based on what is known about cell division?

You seem to be expressing very muddled thinking.

You seem to be assuming that the earliest cells were exactly like those we know of today. Why would you do that?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How so?

EXACTLY how so?

As you have admitted to your ignorance of biology, why on earth should anyone care that you claim evolution is impossible because you personally do not understand it (and goes against your religious programming)? You claim a high IQ - can you really think this line of "argumentation" is anything other than fallacious nonsense?

How so?

EXACTLY how so?

As you have admitted to your ignorance of biology, why on earth should anyone care that you claim evolution is impossible because you personally do not understand it (and goes against your religious programming)? You claim a high IQ - can you really think this line of "argumentation" is anything other than fallacious nonsense?

Waaaay too complex to have come about by a mindless, purposeless process.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your posts show that you are anti-science, in the current pro-Trump/climate change is a hoax/creationism is true fashion.


You are anti-science in part because you have admitted your ignorance of the subject matter yet feel justified in rendering judgements on it. Dunning-Kruger effect writ large.

I love science, but not evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You seem to be expressing very muddled thinking.

You seem to be assuming that the earliest cells were exactly like those we know of today. Why would you do that?

Self-replicating cells are necessary for evolution. When and how were they formed? Did they evolve? If so how, if they didn't have the ability to self-replicate? If the first life form had this ability it would be wondrous indeed, even magical.

To the point, how can you build a theory around the first life form if you don't know anything about it?

 

[PsychoSarah]

It follows then that the first critters that ate the bacteria were not 'animals'. My statement therefore stands. The bacteria evolved for these critters just in time for dinner.

-_- no, autotrophs and chemoheterotrophs (which consume environmental chemicals, not other organisms, for fuel) predate predatory bacteria and the like. They didn't "evolve just in time for dinner", these are the simplest paths for long term survival at the start. It isn't just that organisms that consume other organisms wouldn't be able to survive if they predated organisms that they could consume, it is that there is no possible evolutionary pathway that would result in that outcome. It takes more adaptations to pursue prey than it does to take in chemicals from the environment.

You are treating an inevitability as a "fortuitous coincidence". Not saying it was necessarily inevitable that something predatory would develop over time, only that life which is not predatory would have to precede it.

 

[pitabread]

To the point, how can you build a theory around the first life form if you don't know anything about it?

Does learning how to drive a car require knowing how the first car was built?

Same deal with evolution: Evolution is about explaining the existing biodiversity of life on Earth, not how the first life formed or where it came from.

Now to be fair I think that once science more definitively cracks the origin of life there may eventually be a more generalized "theory of life" which incorporates both abiogenesis and biological evolution. But at the moment, the theory of evolution deals with life as it already exists regardless of its origin.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Does learning how to drive a car require knowing how the first car was built?

No, but you first must have a car (self replicating cell) to drive (evolve).

 

[pitabread]

No, but you first must have a car (self replicating cell) to drive (evolve).

Sure. And life exists. Ergo, we can form a theory about its biodiversity and observable changes in populations.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

-_- no, autotrophs and chemoheterotrophs (which consume environmental chemicals, not other organisms, for fuel) predate predatory bacteria and the like. They didn't "evolve just in time for dinner", these are the simplest paths for long term survival at the start. It isn't just that organisms that consume other organisms wouldn't be able to survive if they predated organisms that they could consume, it is that there is no possible evolutionary pathway that would result in that outcome. It takes more adaptations to pursue prey than it does to take in chemicals from the environment.

You are treating an inevitability as a "fortuitous coincidence". Not saying it was necessarily inevitable that something predatory would develop over time, only that life which is not predatory would have to precede it.

You're muddying the waters here. It takes a self replicating cell to affect evolution, but such a cell must itself evolve everything needed to divide (a very complex process) and thus evolve. Don't you see the problem here?

Further, why did the original cell have to evolve in the first place? Logic tells me that rather than reacting to environmental stimuli evolution occurs in anticipation of environmental changes not yet occurring.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sure. And life exists. Ergo, we can form a theory about its biodiversity and observable changes in populations.

I have no problem with that.

 

[rjs330]

Are you suggesting that only Biblical literalists (read: creationists) have "faith in God"?

Not at all. Never have said or believed that.

 

[rjs330]

That's a function.

It also has a purpose right? If it doesn't we would all be in trouble right now.

 

[rjs330]

So why can't this god also "design" the processes that makes life form and then evolve?

And also, sounds like you are saying that everything is designed, is that correct?

He could have. But he didn't.

Please give an example of something that you believe definately is not designed in nature or something you think God definitely did not design.

 

[rjs330]

I just explained to you how the pattern of nested hierarchies factually exists.
It's the opposite of assumption.



Sticking your head in the sand, will not make testability of theory go away.
The factual existance of nested hierarchies in and of themself, is actually a prediction of evolution, ironically.




no.



They weren't.

How do you breath, btw, with your head lodged so firmly up.... errr.... burried so deep underground?

Nah, sorry not buying it. Nested heirarchies are the height of assumptions when you trace them backwards.

I breath just fine thank you. My head is firmly on my shoulders looking up where it belongs. "Look up for your redemption draweth nigh"

 

[rjs330]

Not at all what I said.



No.

Rather: science based on empirical objective evidence, trumps faith based beliefs of people who claim to know what an undemonstrable god supposedly said.

When reality disagrees with your faith based beliefs, it's not reality that is wrong.

To say otherwise is about the most intellectually dishonest position one can put himself in.

And observable evidence shows that what God says happened really did. All observation proves the Bible is true. DNA proves the bible true. Evolution looks at the evidence and based on an unobservable assumption that all things evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[rjs330]

Those designed by humans, yes.

Are you claiming that Jehovah is human?

I'm thinking that is rhetorical question.

 

[rjs330]

What a beautiful design! That car is cool!

 

[rjs330]

Your posts show that you are anti-science, in the current pro-Trump/climate change is a hoax/creationism is true fashion.


You are anti-science in part because you have admitted your ignorance of the subject matter yet feel justified in rendering judgements on it. Dunning-Kruger effect writ large.

Your funny! Anti-science! I love how if one doesn't believe in evolution from a common ancestor somehow we are balnketed with Anti-science. I don't believe in the Quran, does that make me anti-religion?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It also has a purpose right? If it doesn't we would all be in trouble right now.

A purpose, in the sense of function within the system, yes.

I prefer the word "function" because "purpose" tends to have some baggage around here, which is not applicable to organs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

He could have. But he didn't.

Then why did he make sure that literally everything looks as though it evolved?

Please give an example of something that you believe definately is not designed in nature or something you think God definitely did not design.

Bio-diversity, planets, stars, moons, mountains, rocks, lava, oceans, puddles, clouds, snowflakes,.............