Answering any questions on Evolution

[JoeyArnold]

If you mean religious beliefs he doesn't have any because his icon says he's an Atheist.

Religion is like the word sports because it's NOT just about basketball.

 

[LOCO]

If you mean religious beliefs he doesn't have any because his icon says he's an Atheist.
Any beliefs he has about other things such as politics mean nothing here.

He did say ask me about my beliefs, so I asked. I know he is an atheist. I'm guessing he has beliefs based on that or view on Christianity.

 

[Greg1234]

I'm amazed that my Christian brethren struggle so with probabilities. Why do they find it so disturbing that the universe would involve low probability events (especially when the vast size and age of the universe easily makes "improbable" events quite probable)?

Yep, just check out Jupiter.

But the Bible itself tell us that God is not opposed to using "chance" for his purposes. According to scripture, the roll of every pair of dice ("the lots") is determined by the Lord. So why do so many Christians get bent out of shape when science observes and describes "chance" within the operations of the universe?

Seems within the law.

After all, the Bible itself describe ABIOGENESIS: "God formed the man from the dust of the ground."

Did not see the Earth kind mutating to bacteria (abiogenesis), or the fish kind mutating to man (Darwinism). Dust of the Earth, dust/tissue of the chimpanzee, take your pick, but let's try not taking the reductionist perspective.

living organisms are composed of the basic elements of the earth's crust, not some "magical" life-force types of materials unique to life.)

Hm, this seems like reductionism.

Likewise, science investigates the role of "chance" and improbable events in the natural world. Likewise, the Bible says that "chance" is part of reality and that the Creator has mastery over chance and improbabilities. So where is the conflict?

Still goes back to the law and the origin of man.

 

[AV1611VET]

Religion is like the word sports because it's NOT just about basketball.

That's good, Joey --

 

[JanetReed]

Religion is like the word sports because it's NOT just about basketball.

That's good, Joey --

No Joey it's not good, religion is a belief and not believing in a religion is not a belief, idiots might tell you it is but it's not.

 

[Zaius137]

Yes they did form a racemic mixture but this is irrelevent if there is no needed for enzyme-specificity to favour a L or D enantiomer.

But that is what we see in life today… left handedness fitting into right-handedness. What kind of life would you be referring to (imaginary?).

There were no complex sugars because the formation of say glycogen requires multistage enzyme-controlled reactions. However simple sugars are enough for basic biochemical processes. The first forms of life would not have to store sugars, only use them in there raw forms.

And how would they do that before the second law caught up?

Please try and refute me about the general consensus on the early Earth conditions.

The early earth consensus is not based on any discoveries or physical science; it is a belief system that has no evidence. It is up to you to show any legitimate criticism of the Faint sun problem.

You seem to think that all life originated from one reaction? If this was the case I would agree that the chances of it originating are infinatly small. However, what about many similar reactions happening all across the world forming similar compounds over millions of years considering the amount of time it takes for covalent bonds to form?

Because the constituents are unstable and need contact with each other; even then the odds of life are well beyond 1 in 10^200. You need to present a number lower than 1 in 10^200 to get past Dembski’s limit. Mathematics uses limits all the time and without them it does not function.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Religion is a belief and not believing in a religion is not a belief.

Believing is like walking.

 

[selfinflikted]

Believing is like walking.

I just know I'm going to be sorry for this, but how?

 

[JoeyArnold]

I just know I'm going to be sorry for this, but how?

Believing is like walking. Belief is simply our choices in life. If you believe in eating then you will eat. If you believe in sleeping then you might lay down in your bed. Belief is your conscience. Everything we do is governed by our beliefs. Beliefs is our will. Belief is what we choose to do in life.

 

[verysincere]

Because the constituents are unstable and need contact with each other; even then the odds of life are well beyond 1 in 10^200. You need to present a number lower than 1 in 10^200 to get past Dembski’s limit. Mathematics uses limits all the time and without them it does not function.

Yet another example of The Equivocation Fallacy.

Notice how he taps the concept of "limits" --- a foundation of calculus --- and tries to apply its substance and credibility to something totally unrelated: Dembski's "limit". (Of course, Dembski's limit has no credibility in its associated scientific field. Plus, Dembski himself lost any final shreds of personal credibility when he posted his website mocking Dover Trial judge, John Jones, and various "enemy scientists" with fart sounds emanating from their pictures.)

One of the few differences I've noticed between the "creation science" of today versus the Morris & Whitcomb brand of the 1960's, when I was an naive advocate for it, is that the Equivocation Fallacy has become a standard propaganda tactic applied routinely (and recklessly) in an effort to prop up all sorts of nonsense.

(Answers in Genesis has virtually refined the use of the Equivocation Fallacy into a fine art. For example, notice Ken Ham's straight-faced claims that Hitler and the Nazis loved The Theory of Evolution and applied it to justify the Holocaust, simply because Ham can find a German word in MEIN KAMPF that is often translated "evolution" in English. He's happy to utilize the Equivocation Fallacy in that context even though the Nazis placed all of Darwin's books on the banned book list and burned every library copy. Of course, standards of truth and reality are rarely an obstacle for some.)

.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Believing isn't limited to religion so to speak.

 

[verysincere]

No Joey it's not good, religion is a belief and not believing in a religion is not a belief, idiots might tell you it is but it's not.

Yes. I have no idea why so many of my Christian brethren insist on destroying their credibility by repeating such mantras as "Atheism is a religion" and "Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship." (Yes, I'm very familiar with the traditional justifications for those claims but they are ridiculous.)

.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Yes. I have no idea.

Religion isn't just describing one ingredient of a meal.

 

[selfinflikted]

Believing is like walking. Belief is simply our choices in life. If you believe in eating then you will eat. If you believe in sleeping then you might lay down in your bed. Belief is your conscience. Everything we do is governed by our beliefs. Beliefs is our will. Belief is what we choose to do in life.

I'm fairly certain you are wrong about all of the above. I don't have to "believe" in eating to be hungry. When I am hungry, I eat. No belief required. In the same vein, when I grow too tired, I will sleep. Again, no belief required.

So, I'm still not sure how you are conflating belief and walking, eating, and sleeping.

 

[bjt2024]

What are your beliefs?

Hello,

In the strictest sense I am agnostic. I believe that for someone to be 100% atheist is as unscientific as being 100% theist. Imagine a scale 1 to 7.

1 = I believe 100% God exists
7 = I believe 100% there is no God.

I would place myself a 6.99. Technically this makes me an Agnostic however I identify myself as atheist as I do not believe in a god as much as I believe in fairies or unicorns. They may exist in some far stretches of the universe, however I highly doubt it based on common sense and logic.

God may exist, he may well do, however the bible was a book, a very good one, in the same sense that Harry Potter is a good book. I do not believe Hogwarts is a real school and I do not believe Moses parted the Red Sea.

As for science, I do not need to hold faith or belief. Hard evidence and rigorous testing of theories distinguishes itself from faith.

 

[verysincere]

Did not see the Earth kind mutating to bacteria (abiogenesis), or the fish kind mutating to man (Darwinism).

For the millionth time, please repeat slowly to yourself: Hypotheses about abiogenesis are unrelated to "Darwinism".

Dust of the Earth, dust/tissue of the chimpanzee, take your pick, but let's try not taking the reductionist perspective. Hm, this seems like reductionism.

Those statements are gibberish. And you are implying that "reductionism" must be a pejorative.

.

 

[JoeyArnold]

I don't have to "believe" in eating to be hungry.

Why do some people starve themselves?

 

[selfinflikted]

Why do some people starve themselves?

Any number of reasons, Joey. Some have eating disorders, some want to be skinny, some have no access to food. What's your point?

 

[verysincere]

Hello,

In the strictest sense I am agnostic. I believe that for someone to be 100% atheist is as unscientific as being 100% theist. Imagine a scale 1 to 7.

1 = I believe 100% God exists
7 = I believe 100% there is no God.

I would place myself a 6.99. Technically this makes me an Agnostic however I identify myself as atheist as I do not believe in a god as much as I believe in fairies or unicorns. They may exist in some far stretches of the universe, however I highly doubt it based on common sense and logic.

God may exist, he may well do, however the bible was a book, a very good one, in the same sense that Harry Potter is a good book. I do not believe Hogwarts is a real school and I do not believe Moses parted the Red Sea.

As for science, I do not need to hold faith or belief. Hard evidence and rigorous testing of theories distinguishes itself from faith.

And as a Bible-believing Christian myself, I have no problems respecting your opinion. I am always troubled when so many of my Christian brethren attack such views as if they must be eradicated. (The Bible itself explains that not everyone will have the same beliefs. Indeed, the Bible clearly states that only a small number will fully embrace the teachings of Jesus. So I don't understand why so many Christians are bound and determined to protest that reality.)

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do some people starve themselves?

So they won't starve later on.