Do it without magic.

[ViaCrucis]

Please post this picture... I would like to see what kind of organism your and your dad are, respectively.

I am sure that a coroner would pretty much prove that you are quite the same in an autopsy.

In fact, if one coroner was to take all your dads organs and parts and your organs and parts and mix them up in a big tub. Without DNA testing, another coroner would have a very difficult time sorting them out into you and your dad.

And, if you threw mine in there too.... still more pieces to an unsolvable puzzle.

So your position is that you, my father, and me are all the same individual?

So by responding to you am I talking to myself?

I am the handsome red head hanging onto a tree branch on the left, my father is the weirdo with the cowboy hat on the right.

Now, assuming we're both quite sane, it should be obvious that my father and I are not the same person, we are, in fact, completely separate, completely distinct human individuals.

Now if you want to insist that you, my father, and me are the same person and that you and I are merely talking to ourself, then I really don't know what else to say.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No new life forms are created by natural selection. Natural selection only works on existing life forms. . . .

There you go again, separating natural selection and mutations. It takes both working together to drive evolution.

Natural selection doesn't create alternate life forms? Mutations are random and cannot have a direction? Both true. But mutations followed by natural selection have a direction and have new forms.

 

[justlookinla]

There you go again, separating natural selection and mutations. It takes both working together to drive evolution.

Natural selection doesn't create alternate life forms? Mutations are random and cannot have a direction? Both true. But mutations followed by natural selection have a direction and have new forms.

I'm differentiating between natural selection and mutation. There's only one creative impetus in certain views of evolution....mutation....which is driven by only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms and which began the creation of all life we observe today by acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.

As a theist, what's your view on mutations being random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless, eventually producing humanity?

 

[Star Adept]

I'm differentiating between natural selection and mutation. There's only one creative impetus in certain views of evolution....mutation....which is driven by only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms and which began the creation of all life we observe today by acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.

As a theist, what's your view on mutations being random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless, eventually producing humanity?

I wish you'd stop using creative impetus. By definition, it's too simplistic to explain what you're trying to say. You're literally saying "force that creates."

1. Evolution, if using the definition relating to the mystery of origin of life (because there are other definitions for evolution), cannot be defined as the method of the origin of life because that is a mystery.

2. Nobody can prove to anybody else who does not believe in their personal (despite its original source(s) of information) answer(s) to the question of the origin of life unless they take them on a time machine.

2.a.Some people don't even accept there is a past; and therefore, unable to be traveled to. So, this may remain a mystery forever.

3. Abiogenesis (inorganic -> organic) does not mandate that this only happened once and there is only one universal ancestor. It also disproves (see 3a) the "only one" method of creation of life because it is a different method of creation of life than reproduction.

3.a. It only disproves it if you are using the definition of evolution as the theoretical answer to the mystery of the origin of life. If you use the definition of evolution as gradual change as the answer to the question of the origin of life, this holds as a valid definition in the theory.

3.b. They're getting pretty close to (edit: making a) process.

-Formamide has been shown to create guanine at 130 °C in the presence of ultra violet light

High-energy chemistry of formamide: A unified mechanism of nucleobase formation

The coincidence of the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) period and the emergence of terrestrial life about 4 billion years ago suggest that extraterrestrial impacts could contribute to the synthesis of the building blocks of the first life-giving molecules. We simulated the high-energy synthesis of nucleobases from formamide during the impact of an extraterrestrial body. A high-power laser has been used to induce the dielectric breakdown of the plasma produced by the impact. The results demonstrate that the initial dissociation of the formamide molecule could produce a large amount of highly reactive CN and NH radicals, which could further react with formamide to produce adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil. Based on GC-MS, high-resolution FTIR spectroscopic results, as well as theoretical calculations, we present a comprehensive mechanistic model, which accounts for all steps taking place in the studied impact chemistry. Our findings thus demonstrate that extraterrestrial impacts, which were one order of magnitude more abundant during the LHB period than before and after, could not only destroy the existing ancient life forms, but could also contribute to the creation of biogenic molecules.

 

[SkyWriting]

Okay, so for those that don't accept evolution. How did all the animals on the earth today come to be here if they didn't evolve through a natural process of common descent and natural selection?

And can you give an honest explanation where magic, miracles or the supernatural is not necessary?

I accept that change to populations happens as we can document it.
We haven't found any reason WHY chemicals and organics would want
to change into life and then diversify from one common source.
Until we can show a reason why this would happen, then the natural
laws are evidently not the source of life.

And I'm only interested in the source. It's pretty rare in the cosmos
evidently. Until you can explain the reason, then your subject is magic.

 

[SkyWriting]

Mutations are random and cannot have a direction? Both true. But mutations followed by natural selection have a direction and have new forms.

Nothing in the universe is random. Mutations are carefully screened by
processes designed just for that purpose.

 

[Star Adept]

I accept that change to populations happens as we can document it.
We haven't found any reason WHY chemicals and organics would want
to change into life and then diversify from one common source.
Until we can show a reason why this would happen, then the natural
laws are evidently not the source of life.

And I'm only interested in the source. It's pretty rare in the cosmos
evidently. Until you can explain the reason, then your subject is magic.

Hm. Is it that you're searching for the reason why chemicals and organics want to turn into life, etc. ? Or is it that you're rejecting the theory unless a purpose/desire is defined?

Nothing in the universe is random.

Pre/Determinalism or not-yet-known calculable interaction?

 

[JacksBratt]

So your position is that you, my father, and me are all the same individual?

Check your post. You did not say different individuals. You said different organisms.

Every organism is a different individual. Even twins....

Just an example of the double speak, goal post moving, definition twisting, of evolutionists.

Your theory is based on no more than extrapolation and assumption. The fossil record is static. Natural selection would take us from order to disorder. There is no need to have it in science classes any more than creation. We can teach what is "now" without trying to force into students minds what went on long before history.

 

[JacksBratt]

Okay, so for those that don't accept evolution. How did all the animals on the earth today come to be here if they didn't evolve through a natural process of common descent and natural selection?

And can you give an honest explanation where magic, miracles or the supernatural is not necessary?

Is not the existence of live itself, in the very seconds that it was first here, "magic"? No matter how you look at it. Evolution or creation, there has to be a point in time where there was no life and then in an instant, there was life.

No matter how you slice it, that moment is "magic" or "supernatural".

This is why evolutionists don't touch that part. They shy away, or simply state "we don't deal with how it started". They just want to tell us what happened after that first glimmer of life.

All of which is just the best guess based on some "educated" "accredited" intellectuals who will chastise anyone who goes against the accepted "theory".

A time is coming, soon, where things are going to take place that will deem "mutation" and "natural selection" a blib of ignorance and embarrassment to men and women of the "educated elite".

As far as magic and supernatural..... you ain't seen nothing yet. Science will be in awe of the events that are about to unfold. Science will be at a loss to explain it. All the gauges will be sprung, the calibrated instruments will have to be looked at with parameters never seen for centuries.

"Educated", men and women of "respected" levels of intellect will stand, mouth open in awe of observed events that cannot be covered up, hidden, explained away with some baffle gab, hyperbola of the blight of "empirical science".

 

[lasthero]

Check your post. You did not say different individuals. You said different organisms.

Every organism is a different individual. Even twins....

Just an example of the double speak, goal post moving, definition twisting, of evolutionists.

An organism is defined as an individual animal. If you're talking about two organisms, you're, by defintion, talking about two different individuals. There's no double-speak, it's part of the definition.

 

[lasthero]

Is not the existence of live itself, in the very seconds that it was first here, "magic"? No matter how you look at it. Evolution or creation, there has to be a point in time where there was no life and then in an instant, there was life.

No matter how you slice it, that moment is "magic" or "supernatural".

This is why evolutionists don't touch that part. They shy away, or simply state "we don't deal with how it started". They just want to tell us what happened after that first glimmer of life.

All of which is just the best guess based on some "educated" "accredited" intellectuals who will chastise anyone who goes against the accepted "theory".

A time is coming, soon, where things are going to take place that will deem "mutation" and "natural selection" a blib of ignorance and embarrassment to men and women of the "educated elite".

As far as magic and supernatural..... you ain't seen nothing yet. Science will be in awe of the events that are about to unfold. Science will be at a loss to explain it. All the gauges will be sprung, the calibrated instruments will have to be looked at with parameters never seen for centuries.

"Educated", men and women of "respected" levels of intellect will stand, mouth open in awe of observed events that cannot be covered up, hidden, explained away with some baffle gab, hyperbola of the blight of "empirical science".

And so, you join the long list of people who've been claiming that the scientific community is about to have some massive uphevel and reject evolutionary theory, despite having aboslutely no evidence that such a change is about to occur.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hm. Is it that you're searching for the reason why chemicals and organics want to turn into life, etc. ? Or is it that you're rejecting the theory unless a purpose/desire is defined?

If life develops naturally, I want know what natural
property matter has that is pushing for life.

There are 10,000 that oppose it.
How about one that promotes the formation of life.

Pre/Determinalism or not-yet-known calculable interaction?

N.Y.K.C.I.

 

[Strathos]

This question is pointless - you're asking creationists to defend something other than what they actually believe.

You might as well ask a baseball player to talk about their career without mentioning baseball.

 

[SkyWriting]

This question is pointless - you're asking creationists to defend something other than what they actually believe.

You might as well ask a baseball player to talk about their career without mentioning baseball.

Good point

 

[Strathos]

By that logic, are you saying that God, Who knows everything, created the universe sans science?

If so, I totally agree.

God did not use science to create this universe.

He used a series of one miracle after another.

God created an internally consistent universe in which science can be applied to discover His handiwork.

 

[AV1611VET]

God created an internally consistent universe in which science can be applied to discover His handiwork.

Ya ... that's why we have about eight different theories as to how we got our moon.

 

[JacksBratt]

And so, you join the long list of people who've been claiming that the scientific community is about to have some massive uphevel and reject evolutionary theory, despite having aboslutely no evidence that such a change is about to occur.

Meh, wait and see.

 

[lasthero]

Meh, wait and see.

I have. I've been waiting since I was born. People have been saying it since before YOU were born.


Demise of Evolution?

Richard] Owen says my book will be forgotten in ten years, perhaps so; but, with such a [short but prestigious] list [of scientific supporters], I feel convinced that the subject will not." [Darwin in a letter to J. D. Hooker, 3/3/1860].

"I have read lately so many hostile views [of The Origin of Species], that I was beginning to think that perhaps I was wholly in the wrong, and that Owen was right when he said the whole subject would be forgotten in ten years; but now that I hear that you and Huxley will fight publicly (which I am sure I never could do), I fully believe that our cause will, in the long run, prevail." [Darwin in a letter to J. D. Hooker, 7/2/1860].

This was written in 1860. 150 years of guys saying the same thing, but YOU, you've got it right this time. Evolution's demise is just around the corner. ANY DAY NOW!

 

[justlookinla]

Meh, wait and see.

Darwinist evolutionary theory is constantly changing and what's true today may not be true tomorrow, thus the existence of neo-Darwinism which is yielding to neo-neo-Darwinism...and on and on.

Evolutionary 'science' is based on guesses and suppositions and as long as that's the basis, it will be a philosophical worldview built on shifting sand.

 

[Aldebaran]

God created an internally consistent universe in which science can be applied to discover His handiwork.

And scientists are so perfect that they never misinterpret their findings. They also never bend to political pressure or peer pressure. Just like politicians, they are only human.