Are discussions on faith and science two different catagories?

[Herman Hedning]

Even though a fruit fly might seem rather simple, it does consist of about 50,000 cells that are quite well organized.

Not that it really matters for the argument, but isn't that a huge underestimate? I would have thought at least a billion cells, even in such a small creature.

 

[JackRT]

Not that it really matters for the argument, but isn't that a huge underestimate? I would have thought at least a billion cells, even in such a small creature.

That was the estimate I came across in another discussion some years ago. I will attempt a little research.

 

[AV1611VET]

That was the estimate I came across in another discussion some years ago. I will attempt a little research.

QV:

Nothing at all. Spontaneous generation posited the appearance of higher life forms like fruit flies or maggots on rotting fruit or meat. Even though a fruit fly might seem rather simple, it does consist of about 50,000 cells that are quite well organized. This is what Pasteur and others disproved --- not the possibility of abiogenesis.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nothing at all. Spontaneous generation posited the appearance of higher life forms like fruit flies or maggots on rotting fruit or meat. Even though a fruit fly might seem rather simple, it does consist of about 50,000 cells that are quite well organized. This is what Pasteur and others disproved --- not the possibility of abiogenesis.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a fruit fly or a single cell amoeba or a microscopic whatever, it’s the spontaneous generation of “life from non-life”. The only difference is scale.

The observations show life only comes from life. Due to conditions that apparently favor an abundance of life forms of all varieties and sizes, one would think the current conditions would be more favorable to such life from non-life than past periods where the earth must have been highly adverse to life of any kind.

 

[Speedwell]

It doesn’t matter if it’s a fruit fly or a single cell amoeba or a microscopic whatever, it’s the spontaneous generation of “life from non-life”. The only difference is scale.

The observations show life only comes from life. Due to conditions that apparently favor an abundance of life forms of all varieties and sizes, one would think the current conditions would be more favorable to such life from non-life than past periods where the earth must have been highly adverse to life of any kind.

Actually, just the opposite is true. Abiogenesis may be a common event even now, but in the densely populated biosphere of today any proto-life which appeared would almost instantly become food and so remain undetected.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually, just the opposite is true. Abiogenesis may be a common event even now, but in the densely populated biosphere of today any proto-life which appeared would almost instantly become food and so remain undetected.

Sure, we can posit anything and call it science as long as it fits your system of beliefs. From the spontaneous generation of life from non-life that can’t be observed, to branes, multiverses and whatnots.

Does that go hand in hand with those missing “common ancestors” that are all missing?

 

[Brightmoon]

Sure, we can posit anything and call it science as long as it fits your system of beliefs. From the spontaneous generation of life from non-life that can’t be observed, to branes, multiverses and whatnots.

Does that go hand in hand with those missing “common ancestors” that are all missing?

. The common ancestors of modern organisms aren’t missing . They’re either fossils or we can see them through genetics . Why do you keep posting that PRATT

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not that it really matters for the argument, but isn't that a huge underestimate? I would have thought at least a billion cells, even in such a small creature.

one or a quadrillion doesn’t matter. You must first start with one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

. The common ancestors of modern organisms aren’t missing . They’re either fossils or we can see them through genetics . Why do you keep posting that PRATT

Then show me the common ancestor that split to become man and chimp?

Not one supposedly before the split or after, or leading to the split, but the common ancestor that split to become both.

Show me one for any of the claimed evolutionary trees where life split to become another thing....

They don’t exist. It’s why at every single split on any evolutionary tree imaginary lines are drawn to imaginary common ancestors to link them with imaginary lines to past and future forms.

 

[Astrophile]

Sure it is. You have a sample set of one - the solar system. From that they based a universal conclusion that gravity is the dominating force everywhere in the universe.

Binary stars, which consist entirely of plasma, orbit around their common centre of gravity in accordance with Newton's theory of gravitation; these orbits are the main source of information about stellar masses.

 

[pitabread]

Then show me the common ancestor that split to become man and chimp?

Not one supposedly before the split or after, or leading to the split, but the common ancestor that split to become both.

Show me your specific human ancestors from exactly 1450 years ago. Not the ones before, not the ones after but the precise ancestors in your family tree from exactly 1450 years ago.

Oh you can't do that? I guess they don't exist then. </creationist logic>

 

[JackRT]

Show me your specific human ancestors from exactly 1450 years ago. Not the ones before, not the ones after but the precise ancestors in your family tree from exactly 1450 years ago.

Oh you can't do that? I guess they don't exist then. </creationist logic>

Actually I can do that on my father's side to AD 167.

 

[pitabread]

Actually I can do that on my father's side to AD 167.

That just means you didn't have any ancestors prior to AD 167.

 

[AV1611VET]

That just means you didn't have any ancestors prior to AD 167.

Either that, or science is myopic.

 

[pitabread]

Either that, or science is myopic.

Oh hush you.

 

[JackRT]

Oh hush you.

^^^^^ What you said.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh hush you.

 

[Brightmoon]

Then show me the common ancestor that split to become man and chimp?

Not one supposedly before the split or after, or leading to the split, but the common ancestor that split to become both.

Show me one for any of the claimed evolutionary trees where life split to become another thing....

They don’t exist. It’s why at every single split on any evolutionary tree imaginary lines are drawn to imaginary common ancestors to link them with imaginary lines to past and future forms.

briefly, here they are arranged by the approximate dates . Specifically you want a chance to move the goalposts because you know that it’s rarely possible to show a ancestor to direct descendent relationship with fossils . However, you can show that a fossil organism is a close relative and that taken as a whole the fossil record does show common descent. This and modern animal anatomical studies was enough to convince the 19th century scientific community of common descent. Modern scientists also have confirming evidence with genetics.

As far as humans being Primates, Linnaeus challenged all of his contemporaries to demonstrate anatomically that they weren’t . They couldn’t . Some modern primatologists , who actually study Primates, think of humans as a type of chimpanzee . Behaviorally we’re between chimps and bonobos . Anatomically we’re the outliers because we don’t treeswing and we can run and walk upright.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Binary stars, which consist entirely of plasma, orbit around their common centre of gravity in accordance with Newton's theory of gravitation; these orbits are the main source of information about stellar masses.

And their orbit is calculated without adding ad-hoc theory. Now the orbit of those binary stars around the galaxy itself is not correctly calculated using any gravitational theory without adding ad-hoc theory to what was just shown to be 99.9% correct without it.

And you might rethink that belief.

http://www.southastrodel.com/Page029e1.htm

 

[Justatruthseeker]

View attachment 234003briefly, here they are arranged by the approximate dates . Specifically you want a chance to move the goalposts because you know that it’s rarely possible to show a ancestor to direct descendent relationship with fossils . However, you can show that a fossil organism is a close relative and that taken as a whole the fossil record does show common descent. This and modern animal anatomical studies was enough to convince the 19th century scientific community of common descent. Modern scientists also have confirming evidence with genetics.

As far as humans being Primates, Linnaeus challenged all of his contemporaries to demonstrate anatomically that they weren’t . They couldn’t . Some modern primatologists , who actually study Primates, think of humans as a type of chimpanzee . Behaviorally we’re between chimps and bonobos . Anatomically we’re the outliers because we don’t treeswing and we can run and walk upright.

I see no common ancestors. Like I said, imaginary lines drawn to imaginary common ancestors to link them to past and present forms.

I find it telling that every single evolutionist posits the world is conspiring against them. Many fossils of the claimed steps before can be found. Many of the claimed steps after can be found. But the world has conspired to hide every single common ancestor for every single creature on every single evolutionary tree for every single epoch.

We hear how these before the split are found, and these after the split, but (conveniently?) every single one where the split occurred can never be found.

Yah, yah. They tell us lots of things and claim it’s factual. Like coelacanth was a clear transitional link. Until one was found of course. Now suddenly what was used in almost every argument is never heard from at all.

Sure they tell you things as if they were fact. That’s what people do who believe their faith is true.