A thread on evolution

[pitabread]

I present the only logical explanation of what that thing is that created dna, God. It's not an appeal to silence because this is truly the only explanation that actually works.

Except it's not an explanation because it doesn't actually explain anything. It's just a god-of-the-gaps answer that people reach for when they don't have an alternative. Similar to how people used to believe weather patterns like lightning were directly caused by the gods, because they didn't know any better.

It's a viewpoint based on ignorance.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So do you believe the book of life ( our dna) could come from nothing?

No. Even the Big Bang had already existing matter and energy. Prior to that point, physics as we understand them don't really apply, so "something coming from nothing" could be entirely possible. Time doesn't even exist outside the universe, so even the suggestion of a "before the universe" isn't a valid statement. Linear progression may not be a thing outside the universe. However, DNA is a chemical which arose via natural processes acting upon existing matter, not from nothing, in my opinion.

Where does the deity you believe in come from, though? Call it "eternal" and I'll say the same for the pre-Big Bang universe. After all, being without time, a "beginning" doesn't really make sense anyways.

any more than a full color page book could fall from heaven (out of thin air), page numbers falling out of the sky, red ink, blue ink forming itself into coherent words, and pictures? both are impossible yes?

-_- seeing as DNA doesn't literally come from nothing, this comparison is moot.

if so, then the only other option is that they did not come.from nothing, and I present the only logical explanation of what that thing is that created dna, God.

Again, since DNA doesn't have to literally pop into existence out of nowhere to not be created by a deity, your point is moot.

It's not an appeal to silence because this is truly the only explanation that actually works.

DNA is a molecule. It forms via chemical reactions. To be very blunt, there is no reason to even single it out in your argument. It'd work just as "well" if you were talking about water. "Do you believe water just comes from nothing, or did god create it?" -_- the answer to any question like that is going to be "neither".

if there were other explanations than one may say this is an argument from silence but neither you nor myself have another explaination.

God of the gaps fallacy. I don't know is a perfectly valid answer, you know. Just because a deity makes sense to you personally doesn't save the idea from the lack of evidence to back it up. When the evidence is lacking to support a hypothesis, the null hypothesis always wins. The null hypothesis to the hypothesis that a deity exists is that said deity doesn't exist. Until there is proper evidence that any given deity exists, they will pragmatically be considered fiction.

 

[pitabread]

that is why you need to watch it. I guarantee you none of them watched it to the end. if one hour could change your life would you sacrifice one hour? Again it's not just how ray words the questions, it's common sense. It really is, and all of them eventually agree in the common sense questions. I could post it here but I would ruin the movie, and I don't like ruining movies for people.

You seem to think I've never encountered Christian apologetics or arguments for design before. Like I already told you, I've seen other material from Ray and am well versed in his schtick.

(I mean really, comparing an artificially manufactured book to DNA? *That's* what you find so convincing?)

FWIW, I did watch the beginning and end of that particular video to see if that claim of yours about 90% conversions was true. Turns out it wasn't. Given that you weren't truthful about that, I'm not putting much stock in anything else you claim about that particular video.

 

[PsychoSarah]

that is why you need to watch it. I guarantee you none of them watched it to the end. if one hour could change your life would you sacrifice one hour? Again it's not just how ray words the questions, it's common sense. It really is, and all of them eventually agree in the common sense questions. I could post it here but I would ruin the movie, and I don't like ruining movies for people.

The Ray Comfort movie? I watched it before even seeing this thread. Ever notice the editing throughout the movie? Plus, if I recall correctly, he interviewed PZ Myers, an atheist I respect even less than Dawkins and has the tact of an infant. He's a wingnut.

 

[Job 33:6]

Biased Sample: see Unrepresentative Sample:

Unrepresentative Sample

Basically cherry picking one fact over another fact of equal authenticity, simply because of its conformity to one view or another. Typical of biased, single minded argumentation.

using a crocodile in this debate is a biased sample,

And regarding the crocodile head, i was just demonstrating that sahelanthropus shares traits with a human skull. If i held a crocodile skull, sahelanthropus and a human skull side by side, it would be quite obvious which of the two skulls were more similar. You dont need to be a scientist to know that a lion skeleton looks more similar to a tiger skeleton than an elephant skeleton.

So indeed we recognize similarities in fossils.

And so, my question, for the third time is, what if the fossil succession through time, matched genetic similarities?

That is to say, fossil similarity through time, what if it matched genetic similarity?

And many people wouldnt understand what this question means, which is why i continue by asking, do you know what I mean? And if not, i dont mind giving an example.

And im not asking if you agree with this being reality or not, but my question is, what would it mean to you? (If fossil similarity through geologic time, matched genetic similarity). Do you know what I am asking?

 

[VirOptimus]

observation is a critical aspect of hard scientific theory. If you have no observation you do not have the ability to test any hypothesis. Evolution is untested because there is no observation of macro evolution. So to claim it is science, is wrong. It absolutely cannot be science.

....

Are you serious? You are incredibly ignorant, please, educate yourself because this is beyond silly.

 

[pitabread]

....

Are you serious? You are incredibly ignorant, please, educate yourself because this is beyond silly.

This thread went beyond silly about 30 pages back.

 

[Obliquinaut]

observation is a critical aspect of hard scientific theory. If you have no observation you do not have the ability to test any hypothesis. Evolution is untested because there is no observation of macro evolution. So to claim it is science, is wrong. It absolutely cannot be science.

Incorrect.

Here's a hypothetic: do you believe that Forensic Science can help solve murders? A crime scene investigator comes to the scene and OBSERVES what is left over after the crime. This is called "evidence". Even if the crime scene investigator DOESN'T VIEW THE MURDER IN REAL TIME they can use the data that is available to estimate how the murder took place and who could possibly have done this.

In the case of evolution we have lots and lots and lots of data supporting the idea that life changes over time (note how we don't see all life showing up at one point in the rock record). And interestingly enough there's a LOT of data supporting a COMMON ANCESTRY to life. This universal common ancestry would seem to dictate that macroevolution as you call it happened. We also have evidence of transitional forms seen in the rock record.

So, indeed, observation has served its role.

How about another example? Do the people at CERN actually "see" individual subatomic particles forming or do they see the results in the detector AFTER the formation?

 

[Obliquinaut]

....

Are you serious? You are incredibly ignorant, please, educate yourself because this is beyond silly.

This is the usual "gambit" taken by creationists (or climate change skeptics). They treat science according to a very strict system that looks more like a junior high understanding than a real-life understanding of how science actually works.

A few examples are usually sufficient to make the counterpoint. Not that the creationist will learn how science works, but it is out there from scientists about what is actually happening in science.

 

[createdtoworship]

The Ray Comfort movie? I watched it before even seeing this thread. Ever notice the editing throughout the movie? Plus, if I recall correctly, he interviewed PZ Myers, an atheist I respect even less than Dawkins and has the tact of an infant. He's a wingnut.

uuum every movie is edited. As far as I am concerned. Red herring.

 

[createdtoworship]

Incorrect.

Here's a hypothetic: do you believe that Forensic Science can help solve murders? A crime scene investigator comes to the scene and OBSERVES what is left over after the crime. This is called "evidence". Even if the crime scene investigator DOESN'T VIEW THE MURDER IN REAL TIME they can use the data that is available to estimate how the murder took place and who could possibly have done this.

In the case of evolution we have lots and lots and lots of data supporting the idea that life changes over time (note how we don't see all life showing up at one point in the rock record). And interestingly enough there's a LOT of data supporting a COMMON ANCESTRY to life. This universal common ancestry would seem to dictate that macroevolution as you call it happened. We also have evidence of transitional forms seen in the rock record.

So, indeed, observation has served its role.

How about another example? Do the people at CERN actually "see" individual subatomic particles forming or do they see the results in the detector AFTER the formation?

forensics is not hard science. It's a soft science. Biology is a hard science with test tubes and hypothesis and observation and testing of hypothesis. So you commit a category error to compare the two. Since evolutionary biology is considered a hard science. but it's not.

 

[Gene2memE]

This thread went beyond silly about 30 pages back.

This thread was beyond silly from the start. Beginning with a Ray Comfort video ensured that.

 

[createdtoworship]

This thread went beyond silly about 30 pages back.

then why are you still here. I mean seriously. You have atheists visiting a christian thread debating atheism and the fact that the universe came from nothing. Which is atheism.

 

[createdtoworship]

....

Are you serious? You are incredibly ignorant, please, educate yourself because this is beyond silly.

ad hominem. Please use logic in your responses. Not attacks.

 

[Gene2memE]

uuum every movie is edited. As far as I am concerned. Red herring.

Not deceptively edited though.

Do you acknowledge that Ray Comfort uses selective editing practices that are deliberately deceptive?

 

[createdtoworship]

And regarding the crocodile head, i was just demonstrating that sahelanthropus shares traits with a human skull. If i held a crocodile skull, sahelanthropus and a human skull side by side, it would be quite obvious which of the two skulls were more similar. You dont need to be a scientist to know that a lion skeleton looks more similar to a tiger skeleton than an elephant skeleton.

So indeed we recognize similarities in fossils.

And so, my question, for the third time is, what if the fossil succession through time, matched genetic similarities?

That is to say, fossil similarity through time, what if it matched genetic similarity?

And many people wouldnt understand what this question means, which is why i continue by asking, do you know what I mean? And if not, i dont mind giving an example.

And im not asking if you agree with this being reality or not, but my question is, what would it mean to you? (If fossil similarity through geologic time, matched genetic similarity). Do you know what I am asking?

thats the same as saying a human being is closer to an elephant than a lego block. It makes a category error because as far as I know crocodiles did not evolve into humans. So again use more logic in your responses, and less fallacy. It will work out better for you in the end.

 

[VirOptimus]

ad hominem. Please use logic in your responses. Not attacks.

But you are wrong, and you cant answer my questions, just handwave.

There is no substance in you posts to adress as you clearly dont understand basic science and logic.

 

[createdtoworship]

Not deceptively edited though.

Do you acknowledge that Ray Comfort uses selective editing practices that are deliberately deceptive?

proving deception is like proving a quote mine. Unless you are inside of ray comforts head it is impossible to differentiate between being mistaken honestly and someone who is trying to deceive. Have you interviewed ray and asked him if he is lying. And being deceptive? Have you called the editors of the movie and asked them the same question. IF not, then your argument is an argument from silence.

 

[createdtoworship]

But you are wrong, and you cant answer my questions, just handwave.

There is no substance in you posts to adress as you clearly dont understand basic science and logic.

ad hominem, please use logic in your responses not attacks. The obvious thing to do is pick apart my arguments logically, not point your finger in the air like a child, and blaming and insulting.

 

[VirOptimus]

proving deception is like proving a quote mine. Unless you are inside of ray comforts head it is impossible to differentiate between being mistaken honestly and someone who is trying to deceive. Have you interviewed ray and asked him if he is lying. And being deceptive? Have you called the editors of the movie and asked them the same question. IF not, then your argument is an argument from silence.

I think there are a saying from some old book, "you will know them by their fruits".