A Pondering of the Peculiar (4)

[Atheos canadensis]

Here!


This is all very interesting and informative. But not one of you can begin to explain the ORIGIN of LIFE! Its not something that could have begun in a vacuum without intelligence behind it. Here's why.

You folks always tell me that I do not understand evolution, because I cite that a car can not appear out from matter on its own. You tell me that it is a mechanical device which is not alive, so it can not have had the potential to have evolved like a living organism allegedly does.

Yet? What you folks are telling me? (You do not realize it of course..) Is that something built a car. And, then it became ALIVE! Why not possible? For, biological life, even in its simplest form? Is much more complex than a car!

If a car can not form on its own?.. And, it can not. But? You are telling me that ... somehow... a something more complex than a car appeared, and was somehow made alive, and all by random chance! And, from there we got the equivalent of the evolving living car - which evolved into living trucks, living SUVs, living Beetles, living Mini Coopers, and living BMW's!

Its totally illogical to think something living would be easier to randomly assemble than a simpler mechanical car is to be assembled. And how a living machine come about? BY RANDOM CHANCE!? Totally illogical! Plain and simple. Biological organisms are living machines!

For if a car can not appear assembled by exposing some matter to energy that were coming together? And, without intelligent thinking behind its manufacture? Yet, you will to are willing to tell me? An even more complex mechanism - Biological life? Was able to do so - and was made to be alive! Biological organisms are machines! Living machines!

What you tell me about the origin of life is like saying lightning hit a pile of materials and out from it cam a LIVING motorcycle! In spite of the fact that biological life is much more complex than any mechanical devise in existence? You say it just happened by a series of random chances all lining up just right. Biological organisms are machines! Living machines!

You are not being honest with the facts. And, you play those who do not share in your area of expertise as always being too stupid to understand. Its all a game. An atheist's chess board.

Are you going to address your demonstrated ignorance on the subject of evolution or are you going to try to deflect the discussion from your failings in this area?

 

[lesliedellow]

This is all very interesting and informative. But not one of you can begin to explain the ORIGIN of LIFE! Its not something that could have begun in a vacuum without intelligence behind it.

In the first place it isn't currently known how life got started.

In the second place, that doesn't alter the fact that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

In the third place, a belief that God is ultimately responsible for the emergence of life does not require that the physical processes which led to its emergence must forever remain a mystery.

God created life; that is all the Bible says. The "how" is the province of science, and the Bible doesn't even address the question.

 

[GenemZ]

Are you going to address your demonstrated ignorance on the subject of evolution or are you going to try to deflect the discussion from your failings in this area?

Stick with what I said, and you will realize that you have been caught in a horrendous illogical inconsistency. After all.. What is more complex in its function? Simple life forms? Or, a toaster? Simple life forms are "biological machines."

Your snob approach is wearing thin. You are only trying to suck me into an argument where you are well studied, yet it can not do one thing to prove the origin of life by anything you have to say. You lose.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Stick with what I said, and you will realize that you have been caught in a horrendous illogical inconsistency. After all.. What is more complex in its function? Simple life forms? Or, a toaster? Simple life forms are "biological machines."

Your snob approach is wearing thin. You are only trying to suck me into an argument where you are well studied, yet it can not do one thing to prove the origin of life by anything you have to say. You lose.

So that would be a solid yes; you are going to do your best to avoid that discussion. I'm not trying to be a snob, I'm trying to point out how insufficient it is for you to claim evolution makes no sense when your understanding of evolution is fundamentally flawed. The argument we are having (and from which you are now doing your best to flee) arose because you claimed that you knew all you needed to know about evolution to conclude it was false. Then it was pointed out that you don't understand evolution even at a very fundamental level. If you don't even understand the basics concepts of evolutionary theory then you can't possibly conclude with certitude that it is false. I'm still waiting for a rebuttal to this. Instead all I've gotten are repeated attempts to the subject. And an empty claim of victory. Is backing down considered victory where you come from?

 

[bhsmte]

So that would be a solid yes; you are going to do your best to avoid that discussion. I'm not trying to be a snob, I'm trying to point out how insufficient it is for you to claim evolution makes no sense when your understanding of evolution is fundamentally flawed. The argument we are having (and from which you are now doing your best to flee) arose because you claimed that you knew all you needed to know about evolution to conclude it was false. Then it was pointed out that you don't understand evolution even at a very fundamental level. If you don't even understand the basics concepts of evolutionary theory then you can't possibly conclude with certitude that it is false. I'm still waiting for a rebuttal to this. Instead all I've gotten are repeated attempts to the subject. And an empty claim of victory. Is backing down considered victory where you come from?

Not the first time you will see a creationist evade specific topics or answer specific questions.

How life started, has nothing to do with how life evolved, but hey, if you use this to avoid the boatloads of evidence to support evolution, why not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not the first time you will see a creationist evade specific topics or answer specific questions.

How life started, has nothing to do with how life evolved, but hey, if you use this to avoid the boatloads of evidence to support evolution, why not?

Just remember:

The Ark was built by faith; the Titanic was built by sight.

The "boatload of faith" made it through the worst maritime conditions on Earth.

The "boatload of evidence" sank in calm water.

 

[bhsmte]

Just remember:

The Ark was built by faith; the Titanic was built by sight.

The "boatload of faith" made it through the worst maritime conditions on Earth.

The "boatload of evidence" sank in calm water.

ok

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just remember:

The Ark was built by faith; the Titanic was built by sight.

The "boatload of faith" made it through the worst maritime conditions on Earth.

The "boatload of evidence" sank in calm water.

Wrong, try again. The Titanic was a large man made boat that was sunk by an iceberg.

The Ark was a mythical boat that was sunk by science.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Titanic was a large man made boat that was sunk by an iceberg.

So?

What's your point?

It sank -- end of story.

 

[GenemZ]

So that would be a solid yes; you are going to do your best to avoid that discussion. I'm not trying to be a snob, I'm trying to point out how insufficient it is for you to claim evolution makes no sense when your understanding of evolution is fundamentally flawed.

If I had all your understanding? Would it show that there was no need for God in the creation? Yes? No?

 

[GenemZ]

Wrong, try again. The Titanic was a large man made boat that was sunk by an iceberg.

The Ark was a mythical boat that was sunk by science.

The ark was not a boat. It was more like a huge sealed storage tank, that was designed to float. It could not be steered nor directed. It was a huge storage container. Not a boat.

 

[AV1611VET]

The ark was not a boat. It was more like a huge sealed storage tank, that was designed to float. It could not be steered nor directed. It was a huge storage container. Not a boat.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

If I had all your understanding? Would it show that there was no need for God in the creation? Yes? No?

Nope. Evolution lacks any metaphysical component and makes no claims about God. Now stop backing down from the subject we were discussing. You claimed you knew enough about evolution to judge it false but I and others have demonstrated that you lack even a basic understanding of evolution. Are you going to rebut this or should I just take your persistent evasions as a implicit admission of defeat?

 

[GenemZ]

Not the first time you will see a creationist evade specific topics or answer specific questions.

Its a distraction away from the ultimate point to be made. The questions? Even if fully answered? Would still be an exercise in futility. ..

For the answers would not be able to prove your logical fallacy that life could be formed and begin by random occurrences, without a genius designer controlling the entire process.

Your questions serve only as a set up, and a distraction. Its a set up to be make an excuse to discredit the reasoning of the one who is showing you how illogical the foundation to your premise is. Why learn all that you require, when is does nothing disprove the reality that life could not begun without a genius designer.... AND .... supplier of the needed raw materials. It just makes no sense.

So, for you to set up a defensive wall you must create a means to discredit the reasoning ability of the one who is using his flashlight to show others what you are keeping in the dark. Life could not have originated out from nothing. Material needs a supplier. Biological life requires a designer at its genesis.

So, keep trying discredit me if you wish. Even if you half succeeded? All you will end up with, would be having someone who has lower reasoning ability showing you that you are believing is an impossibility.

I find that to be humorously ironic. Proving someone inept. And, in the long run, making yourself look more inept than he! Remember! The lower you place him? The lower that makes you to be. For he is the one who keeps seeing and exposing the logical fallacy that you so dearly want to cling to.



While we are at it... Here is a good read:


Creation and Evolution by Alan Hayward


Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible: Alan Hayward: 9781597520614: Amazon.com: Books

(Quote from page)

The author is a physicist and was a practicing scientist, he is British and therefore he writes from a slightly different perspective to the books coming out of the USA. The most significant part of the book is the section on the age of the earth where he looks at the young earth arguments and demolishes them quite effectively. It is also significant that in the same year (1985) another book written in the USA by the physicist Don Stoner also debunked the young earth arguments. Hugh Ross in his 1994 book Creation and Time exposed the same fallacies as well as demonstrating the cosmological arguments for an old universe. All young earthers should read Hayward's book. "Claiming that the Bible teaches a young universe only adds an unnecessary stumbling block to those who are skeptical about the faith."​

 

[GenemZ]

Nope. Evolution lacks any metaphysical component and makes no claims about God. Now stop backing down from the subject we were discussing. You claimed you knew enough about evolution to judge it false but I and others have demonstrated that you lack even a basic understanding of evolution. Are you going to rebut this or should I just take your persistent evasions as a implicit admission of defeat?

So you just want me to study biological evolution because you find it a fascinating subject and want to discuss it?

I am not here trying to disprove that evolution takes place. Maybe that has been a presumption of your part. For you are approaching me as if I do not believe that evolution is a part of the creation. Is that correct?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

So you just want me to study biological evolution because you find it a fascinating subject and want to discuss it?

I am not here trying to disprove that evolution takes place. Maybe that has been a presumption of your part. For you are approaching me as if I do not believe that evolution is a part of the creation. Is that correct?

No, I want you to study the very basic aspects of evolutionary theory so that you can discuss from a place of knowledge rather than ignorance.

I have been under the impression that you are attempting to discredit evolution. I got this impression due to your asking questions like how a species could evolve if the female had to wait millions of years for a male of the same species to evolve. Are you telling me you actually accept evolution and universal common ancestry?

 

[GenemZ]

No, I want you to study the very basic aspects of evolutionary theory so that you can discuss from a place of knowledge rather than ignorance.

I have been under the impression that you are attempting to discredit evolution. I got this impression due to your asking questions like how a species could evolve if the female had to wait millions of years for a male of the same species to evolve. Are you telling me you actually accept evolution and universal common ancestry?

I accept the fact that evolution takes place. The fact that it takes place has been exploited to an extreme by certain people who have a bias agenda. Fantasy desires have removed in some cases all restraint, and with leaps of presumption, has caused evolution to become something it is not.

Its many times nothing more than wishful guesswork that quickly gets transformed into dogmatic sounding reasoning. About ten years ago the bonobo monkeys were being cited as proof that bisexuality and homosexuality were inherited by man via evolution. It just does not end. I heard a professor teach once that the way human hair lays on the human body is proof that men were water dwellers at one time. I had to watch a short film on it. Evolutionists just do not know when to quit.

Its when evolutionists dogmatically (and in a calm tone) tells us that man evolved from an ape? And, start citing DNA data as proof? That's where they really can not know. But. they will speak as if its matter of factually true. They would not do that if they were true scientists. Its not verifiable. Its only a guess.

 

[USincognito]

The Ark was built by faith; the Titanic was built by sight.

The difference being that the Titanic actually existed while the ark was just a story told to relate a theological lesson.

 

[USincognito]

Wrong, try again. The Titanic was a large man made boat that was sunk by an iceberg.

The Ark was a mythical boat that was sunk by science.

So?

What's your point?

The point is, unlike the ark, the Titanic actually existed.

 

[USincognito]

If a car can not form on its own?.. And, it can not. But? You are telling me that ... somehow... a something more complex than a car appeared, and was somehow made alive, and all by random chance! And, from there we got the equivalent of the evolving living car - which evolved into living trucks, living SUVs, living Beetles, living Mini Coopers, and living BMW's!

Its totally illogical...

Indeed. It is totally illogical to compare a car - which doesn't reproduce - with a living being.

Then again, you did think speciation occurred in a single individual and it had to wait around millions of years for a mate to evolve as well.