A Pondering of the Peculiar (4)

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Evolution is not abiogenesis. The theory of how life changes is not the theory of how life began. Whether God himself snapped his fingers and created the first lifeform 3.5 billion years ago, or natural chemistry caused it to arise, evolution would proceed exactly the same. Therefore, evolution is unaffected by out ability or inability to explain the origin of life.

What evolution does say about the origin of life is that it was likely a simple self-replicating protein, the progenitor to our modern self-reproducing DNA. Once that formed (whether by God, aliens, or natural chemistry), evolution describes how life develops, adapts, and diversifies over the next 3.5 billion years.

So let's say we can't explain abiogenesis. What impact does that have on evolutionary theory?

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.

Correct - complex mechanisms can arise unguided and unplanned via the mechanism of evolution. But that mechanism only occurs in populations of replicators - cars do not replicate.

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!

If I understand what you're saying, then yes, that's exactly right.

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!

That isn't really a valid argument. Declaring it to be "totally illogical" doesn't cut it - how is it "totally illogical"? What is the specific logically fallacy you're referring to?

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!

There appears to be a fallacy of association in your argument:

• Cars are in the group "complex machines"
• Cars are in the group "didn't come about naturally"
• Organisms are in the group "complex machines"
• Therefore, organisms must also be in the group "didn't come about naturally"

Just because two things are in one group doesn't mean they share all groups. It is illogical to conclude that organisms don't have a natural origin just because another kind of machine doesn't.

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.

Nevertheless, your argument against abiogenesis is flawed.

"Cars are complex machines that we agree did not arise naturally. But organisms are even more complex machines, so they can't have arisen naturally either" - this is faulty logic. Simply being a complex machines does not mean it doesn't have a natural origin. The entire point of the theory of abiogenesis is to explain how something as complex as biological organisms could arise naturally.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

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.

So you accept evolution in general but not when it comes to humans? You think tetrapods arose from fish and birds arose from dinosaurs but humans did not arise from any progenitor? Is that correct? If so, you're being very inconsistent. Why do you accept the lines of evidence showing birds evolved from dinosaurs or that mammals evolved reptiles but refuse to accept the fact that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors when we use the exact same lines of evidence you consider sufficient to indicate evolution among other taxa? What is your justification for considering the methods valid to infer evolution among other organisms but not among humans? Do you have an actual justification for this methodological inconsistency or is it just a knee-jerk reaction? I suspect the latter, but feel free to actual provide some reasoning.

It is not, as you seem to imagine, some conspiracy or agenda scientists are carrying out; it is merely the application of the theory. The evidence is strong and characterizing it as a guess is very dishonest even if you don't agree with it. There is a vast difference between a guess and an evidence-based inference.

 

[bhsmte]

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."
​

Suit yourself, you obviously have motivation to do so.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

Evolution makes no claims about the origins of life. As far as evolution is concerned, god could have seeded the earth with microbes at some point, evolution is neither meant to challenge the existence of deities nor does it, only interpreting life as unchanging. Biological life isn't as complex as you think either; cell membranes (which are basically layers of lipids), the proteins and nucleic acids needed for life, all will arrange themselves in useful ways outside of a living system without any tampering.

 

[bhsmte]

Evolution makes no claims about the origins of life. As far as evolution is concerned, god could have seeded the earth with microbes at some point, evolution is neither meant to challenge the existence of deities nor does it, only interpreting life as unchanging. Biological life isn't as complex as you think either; cell membranes (which are basically layers of lipids), the proteins and nucleic acids needed for life, all will arrange themselves in useful ways outside of a living system without any tampering.

Here is the problem. Evolution is a threat, a threat to certain beliefs and you will see this type of behavior to protect the belief.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Here is the problem. Evolution is a threat, a threat to certain beliefs and you will see this type of behavior to protect the belief.

The problem is is that it is only a threat when you interpret doctrine in a limited and specific way. A way that might not have even been intended.

 

[bhsmte]

The problem is is that it is only a threat when you interpret doctrine in a limited and specific way. A way that might not have even been intended.

Yes and some do interpret in the manner you mention.

 

[GenemZ]

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

That is my point. What is more impossible to appear out from raw materials with nothing directing its construction? Something dead like a car is impossible. We know that. But, you forget, something living must be constructed too before it can be alive! And, even more impossible (if there ever was such a thing) to spontaneously appear constructed and living.

You just do not get that part? A living creature has a construction! It has a design function, and many times more complex than the most sophisticated automobile. It had to be constructed before it could be made alive!

Once its alive? Evolution becomes a possibility. What you avoid? Is showing the process that got it to where it became a living creature. You always like to play with the after effect of being alive and existing, because all the details fascinate you. To ask you where it came from to begin with? You NEVER can answer. That's the problem.

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.

I do not have to think anything. If a cop stops some kids on a joy ride, he is not going to believe them when they tell him the car appeared out from nothing. That it was "just there." That's the problem you face. And REFUSE to face. As a distraction, you keep wanting to point to the shiny tail lights, or show me the nice seats. But, where did it come from to begin with?

No answer... Life is not spontaneously produced.


I must say that I have a basic understanding of how a single cell organism works. Even primitive cells like an E. coli bacteria -- which is one of the simplest life forms we know of -- is amazingly complex!

Something like that just could not have spontaneously constructed itself!

Stop playing games! It could not have just happened without something constructing the organism first, that was to be made alive after constructed.

Or, do you need to study about the complexity of single cell organisms? You should study them. You'll be surprised to find out what complex machines they are! More so than any automobile!

An automobile is simple in comparison.

Stop trying to insult my intelligence. Having expertise in one sphere can be abysmal for another area, for the same person.

 

[PsychoSarah]

A car is not made of organic molecules, thus cannot be compared to living entities.

 

[AV1611VET]

A car is not made of organic molecules, thus cannot be compared to living entities.

And yet a car is made from the same parts found in a human being.

We call that "ontological reduction."

 

[PsychoSarah]

And yet a car is made from the same parts found in a human being.

We call that "ontological reduction."

Oh, so there is a combustion engine that runs on gasoline inside a human being? That's news to me, they sure didn't teach me that in biology -_-

 

[GenemZ]

Here is the problem. Evolution is a threat, a threat to certain beliefs and you will see this type of behavior to protect the belief.

Its only a threat if a media machine will tyrannically push the idea on the unthinking public who are weak and easily conform. Its a sophisticated lie. That is all you have. Its a distortion by taking what is true, to make it into something it is not. Its a ploy.

I know you do not believe there is a God. But, have not esacaped the influence of the spiritual realm. One that hates and fears God. You are a pawn. You do not know it though. Your inspiration is not your own.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Its only a threat if a media machine will tyrannically push the idea on the unthinking public who are weak and easily conform. Its a sophisticated lie. That is all you have. Its a distortion by taking what is true, to make it into something it is not. Its a ploy.

I know you do not believe there is a God. But, have not esacaped the influence of the spiritual realm. One that hates and fears God. You are a pawn. You do not know it though. Your inspiration is not your own.

Suggesting satanic influence again?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, so there is a combustion engine that runs on gasoline inside a human being? That's news to me, they sure didn't teach me that in biology -_-

... Sarah, just before I read this, I pondered just not answering your posts anymore.

You have a kind of ability to turn off even simple points being made and hearing just what you want to hear.

 

[PsychoSarah]

... Sarah, just before I read this, I pondered just not answering your posts anymore.

You have a kind of ability to turn off even simple points being made and hearing just what you want to hear.

Better than saying "take a hike" whenever I can't argue against something

Cars don't have the same parts as biological entities. Seriously, not even close. And they aren't made out of the same materials, so they are further not a good comparison to life.

 

[GenemZ]

Oh, so there is a combustion engine that runs on gasoline inside a human being? That's news to me, they sure didn't teach me that in biology -_-

Ever study the spark plug of your heart muscle? Why do you think a mechanical pacemaker is used when the heart fails to work properly?

Our bodies are biological machines. Your brain runs the body with electrical impulses. Electricity! Your muscles works via electrical impulses combined with nutrients that are used as fuel. And, our body has an exhaust system to eliminate spent fuel.

Its our soul that makes the biological machine to be human. The Hebrew of Genesis reveals that God only created the soul in his image.. NOT your body.

 

[AV1611VET]

Better than saying "take a hike" whenever I can't argue against something

Cars don't have the same parts as biological entities. Seriously, not even close. And they aren't made out of the same materials, so they are further not a good comparison to life.

Okay.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ever study the spark plug of your heart muscle? Why do you think a mechanical pacemaker is used when the heart fails to work properly?

Our bodies are biological machines. Your brain runs the body with electrical impulses. Electricity! Your muscles works via electrical impulses combined with nutrients that are used as fuel. And, our body has an exhaust system to eliminate spent fuel.

Its our soul that makes the biological machine to be human. The Hebrew of Genesis reveals that God only created the soul in his image.. NOT your body.

A machine made of metal is not comparable to one made of flesh. Cars don't reproduce, cars don't think. Show me a machine which has DNA that replicates.

 

[lesliedellow]

Its only a threat if a media machine will tyrannically push the idea on the unthinking public who are weak and easily conform. Its a sophisticated lie.

And why exactly would they do that? - or doesn't a conspiracy theorist need a reason?

I know you do not believe there is a God.

Wrong.

But, have not esacaped the influence of the spiritual realm. One that hates and fears God. You are a pawn. You do not know it though. Your inspiration is not your own.

What utter nonsense.

 

[bhsmte]

Its only a threat if a media machine will tyrannically push the idea on the unthinking public who are weak and easily conform. Its a sophisticated lie. That is all you have. Its a distortion by taking what is true, to make it into something it is not. Its a ploy.

I know you do not believe there is a God. But, have not esacaped the influence of the spiritual realm. One that hates and fears God. You are a pawn. You do not know it though. Your inspiration is not your own.

Has nothing to do with God and this is evidenced by the vast majority of people who do believe in God, agree with evolution.

I get a kick out of the media thing, that is really funny.