Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeah, there was "no advancement" through the paleolithic. None at all.
But rocks, dust, gas, and sunlight will never turn into a horse ... nor even be able to turn a bacteria into a horse ... in all of time. They don't "have that as a property of matter" and they don't have the ability to "acquire the skill over time"
BobRyan said: ↑
But rocks, dust, gas, and sunlight will never turn into a horse ... nor even be able to turn a bacteria into a horse ... in all of time. They don't "have that as a property of matter" and they don't have the ability to "acquire the skill over time
Why?
1. It is reasonable to suppose that -Atheists will argue that no such being "exists".
2. It is reasonable to supposed that Creationists will argue that "no such talented rock exists" (nor even an aggregation of rocks able to do it)
And there are two scenarios: One is based on a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of ...
Ophiolite said: ↑
I will argue that once a self sustaining, reproducible (with error) biochemical complex has been established there is nothing - bar chance - to stop it becoming a horse. And if it does not become a horse it will become something else, alive and potentially evolviing.
The E. coli long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[2] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010.[3] Lenski performed the 10,000th transfer of the experiment on March 13, 2017.[4] The populations reached 73,500 generations in early 2020, shortly before being frozen because of the COVID-19 pandemic.[5][6]
Modern Humans Emerged 200,000 Years Ago. Why Was Technology Stagnant Until The Last 10,000?
Modern humans appeared 200,000; civilization 10,000; and advanced technology 500 years ago. Why no advancement for something like 190,000 years? originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.
Answer by Richard Muller, Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley, author of Now, The Physics of Time, on Quora:
Modern humans appeared 200,000; civilization 10,000; and advanced technology 500 years ago. Why no advancement for something like 190,000 years?
Is this the passage you think says modern humans took 200,000 years to evolve? .
The "bacteria-transform to some new level of taxonomy on the way to horse" story has never been observed to happen not even with observations over 70,0000 generations in the case of a species many time more genetically adaptive than humans.
As has been stated, your conceptual understanding of evolution appears to assume that evolution is strictly linear progression of pre-defined species over time.
The OP question is whether it is more reasonable to suppose that it more reasonable to get to "horse" with an infinitely capable designer/Creator than an infinitely wise and capable rock.
As for how eukaryotes came into being - well you are stuck with non-eukaryotes "to get there", and it is harder to hide evolution stories at that point since we can actually see prokaryotes and watch them in real life over 10's of thousands of generations.
out of curiosity since you quote from the OP -- did you actually read the entire OP?
Yep. Interesting that, rather than answer the question, you pretend the lack of understanding is mine.Are you following the details?
I read the whole OP. It was just nonsense,
large just an argument from incredulity, that stuck out the most
You never answered 'why' dust can't turn into a horse or even bacteria.
I am happy to explain any part of it you might wish to discuss.
It is true that "incredulity" is the theme when addressing the logic/reason behind attributing a barran-earth-to-horse sequence to a sufficiently talented being .. vs a sufficiently talented rock.
In physics and chemistry one thing you learn is that matter has properties... and that is not one of them.
Do you think that properties of dust such as element with atomic weight or valence numbers or electron spin or atomic mass or inertia or potential vs kinetic energy ... will drive dust to turn into a rabbit over time?
If so then lets just put you down as "a yes".
I am happy with that outcome as the OP also freely states
I believe the contrast is "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers.
yesLet me ask this question: do you have any degrees in chemistry or biology, where you feel confident in making these statements to try and say that the theory of abiogenesis (not evolution, abiogenesis) is wrong?
And that degree is or those degrees are...?
biophysics
let me ask you - do you have any information telling you that that rocks have a property that dictates that they will turn into a rabbit over time???
And what would that property be?
Recall there is such a thing as entropy.
What level of a degree is this?
I'm only asking, because you are an anonymous user on a website which has no bearing on actual scientific discourse or discovery and you feel that you can simply say that abiogenesis cannot happen.
.
Warden clearly meant "degree" in terms of amount--not necessarily measured in terms of academic degreesIn the OP I ask for common sense not degrees. I do not post that only if you attain to some level as a PHD are you able to exhibit common sense. Rather I simplify the comparison so that anyone can read it and "get the point" of the contrast.
I also do not say in the OP "Hey look at the science education that I have and then trust me that whatever I think -- must therefore be what everyone else should believe". That is never my argument.
My argument is not that I will only listen to someone that has a certain degree when it comes to this sort of common sense comparison. There are PhDs that are atheist and there are those that a Creationists -- the degree did not make the difference.
Rocks do not turn into rabbits over time no matter how much time you give them. A great many people will admit to this obvious fact including those with advanced science degrees... and others will claim they truly believe something else.
After all I've seen from you, I'm still not sure what your point is. You have an argument against evolution (the Lenski experiment) but it is not clear whether you are arguing against abiogenesis or evolution, or perhaps both at once. You appear to be trying to prove that life could not have begun and/or developed further without the proximate engagement of some kind of superior creative mind. But I'm not quite sure what you think that would get you. Even if you demolished the theory of evolution all it would get you, besides the Nobel Prize, is the chance to contest whatever new scientific theory emerged. But even if you proved that some kind of creative mind was behind it all, it's a long, hard trek beyond that to get to the God of Abraham and a longer, harder trek beyond that to get to creationism.In the OP I ask for common sense not degrees. I do not post that only if you attain to some level as a PHD are you able to exhibit common sense. Rather I simplify the comparison so that anyone can read it and "get the point" of the contrast.
I also do not say in the OP "Hey look at the science education that I have and then trust me that whatever I think -- must therefore be what everyone else should believe". That is never my argument.
My argument is not that I will only listen to someone that has a certain degree when it comes to this sort of common sense comparison. There are PhDs that are atheist and there are those that a Creationists -- the degree did not make the difference.
Rocks do not turn into rabbits over time no matter how much time you give them. A great many people will admit to this obvious fact including those with advanced science degrees... and others will claim they truly believe something else.
When it comes to atheists - I find this very interesting
Yesterday at 4:12 PM #1
But I do not find the practice of calling creationists names or falsely accusing them of not knowing something as a particularly "compelling" solution even for atheists.
Rocks do not turn into rabbits over time no matter how much time you give them.
Warden clearly meant "degree" in terms of amount--not necessarily measured in terms of academic degrees
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?