createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
It's designed at least I know that much, thats more than you apparently.
Upvote
0
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.
We have given you the answer; we don't know and science is researching it. What is your explanation of how life began? (4th time I am asking this question).
ok tell us more about your opinions on how RNA could start life, even without sources. Just in conversation.
Oh, I know.But it's good practice, right? We all have to deal with people who aren't interested in listening to ideas they're uncomfortable with: may as well make them damn uncomfortable.
Stay around long enough and you will realise that having a meaningful debate the way we are used to is practically impossible when dealing with creationists. Trust me; just play along. I gave up long ago trying to debate with sound arguments and evidences.I'm aware of the idea of false dichotomy, argument from ignorance etc. ToE I'm guessing is Theory of Evo?
So far I'm a little disappointed there've been no serious counterpoints. Just wriggling. :/
Stay around long enough and you will realise that having a meaningful debate the way we are used to is practically impossible when dealing with creationists. Trust me; just play along. I gave up long ago trying to debate with sound arguments and evidences.
Stay around long enough and you will realise that having a meaningful debate the way we are used to is practically impossible when dealing with creationists. Trust me; just play along. I gave up long ago trying to debate with sound arguments and evidences.
keeping this one:
I gave up long ago trying to debate with sound arguments and evidences.
If it were a swear word it would have automatically been censored with "Bless do not curse". If you are so keen on pressing the button then nothing is stopping you.you shouldn't cuss in these forums:
I will report the next post that uses damn as a cuss word.
unfit for religious use, of which is this forum.
see second reply below the most popular opinion:
Is 'damn' a swear word?....im curious? - Yahoo Answers
If it were a swear word it would have automatically been censored with "Bless do not curse". If you are so keen on pressing the button then nothing is stopping you.
Now threats aside; please tell me who is the designer you so fondly refer to all the time? We have a scientific theory (ToE) that has withstood 150 years of scrutiny and peer review and has extensive evidences and predictions on how life evolved after it appeared. We also have another scientific field which is not part of ToE called abiogensis which has no answers as of yet on how life began. This does not mean we will never learn. This is how science works.
Now I am curious who this designer is and how do you know it is he who did the designing? After all the world is abound with creation myths from all around the world. How do you know your myth is the one which is valid and what evidence do you have?
You really need to start answering some questions because this so called debate is getting to be very boring and one sided.
ID has nothing on the designer, only the design. Only what our five senses can sense. Only what science can test.
We have CSI, and thats about it.
Very simple.
but on the other hand it has a vast network of antagonisms toward TOE.
so this is part of it, more importantly I might add.
Once people are informed on the cambrian explosion, on abiogenesis, on other issues they may make wiser decisions RE:TOE
Abiogenesis is not part of ToE. The cambrian explosion is a pretty easy concept to wrap your head around: loads of niches opened up over the course of FIFTY MILLION YEARS and so lots of new life forms emerged.
Anything else?
EDIT: BTW, niches in this sense mean various geographical places where some specialised organisms can thrive over others.
ToE is the scientific "test". What test does ID (creationism) have? Since Creationism is not science I am wondering what this test could possibly be?ID has nothing on the designer, only the design. Only what our five senses can sense. Only what science can test.
We have CSI, and thats about it.
You mean overly simplistic?Very simple.
We already have more than enough information and as for abiogenesis we are slowly acquiring information. On the other hand creationism has nothing more than a few verses written during the bronze age and is basically taken from ancient Sumerian mythology.but on the other hand it has a vast network of antagonisms toward TOE.
so this is part of it, more importantly I might add.
Once people are informed on the cambrian explosion, on abiogenesis, on other issues they may make wiser decisions RE:TOE
redherring, strawman, poisning the well etc etc.ToE is the scientific "test". What test does ID (creationism) have? Since Creationism is not science I am wondering what this test could possibly be?
You mean overly simplistic?
We already have more than enough information and as for abiogenesis we are slowly acquiring information. On the other hand creationism has nothing more than a few verses written during the bronze age and is basically taken from ancient Sumerian mythology.
ok good. Well lets repeat a post from old thread so you may have a chance to reply: (I already know what the others will say, but lets see what you have to say)
"From nothing we have almost everything, almost overnight (Geologically speaking). This remains mysterious. No body really understands how this happened."
"In Darwins theory, if you think of the branching tree. You would have one form to begin with. And it would gradually diverge into different forms. And gradually into more differences until you have the major differences appearing."
"The problem with the cambrian explosion is that all these major differences appear together at the same time. With no fossil evidence that they descended from this common ancestor."
"it's not a branching tree, it's a lawn with everything sprouting on it's own."
-Jonathan Wells - PhD molecular and cell biology - UC Berkley.
The whole interview is not in the video just excerpts but the guy from Berkley obviously thinks the explosion sceptically.
another guy is J.Y. chen leading paleontologist at some institute in chengjaing china.
"Darwinism maybe only telling a part of the story for evolution."
"Darwins tree is a reverse cone shape. Very unexpectedly our research is convincing us that major phyla is starting down below at the beginning of the cambrian. The base is wide and gradually narrows. This is almost turned a different way."
He is saying that the tree of life is actually inverted.
This guy is supposed to have some famous pieces of the cambrian era in HIs collection.
there are others that say the same thing.
Briefly (I'm going to bed)
Precambrian life was for the most part bacteria: horizontal gene transfer was rife. Bacteria swap genes like crazy, this is responsible nowadays for the spread of antibiotic resistance including MRSA, multi and extremely drug resistant tuberculosis. Hence precambrian phylogeny is different from cambrian biology. This doesn't challenge evolution: in fact evolution explains this. Read!
The cambrian explosion occurred over a very long time (biologically) during a period of (comparatively) sudden geochemical change. Therefore evolution has a lot of new places (niches) and new conditions to work with. Large amounts of speciation is expected. I posted to this effect earlier, check it out.
Hope that helps.
ID has nothing on the designer, only the design. Only what our five senses can sense. Only what science can test.
We have CSI, and thats about it.
Very simple.
OK If ID is "what science can test" and CSI is "about it," then CSI must be testable. That means it must be quantifiable. How do you quantify CSI? Give me an example of something in the "average" range of CSI, something with half that much CSI, something with twice as much CSI. And give me a formulation that explains different CSI levels in related things.
Alternatively, explain why two things have the same amount of CSI, and another pair with a similar relationship don't
If you are personally unfamilliar with the math involved, that's OK. I'll even settle for a clear, layman's description of how you go about determining the level of CSI in a thing. Emphasis on clear. I am not going to settle for the equivalent of the Kent Hovind trick of placing three pictures of wildly different breeds of dog and a fourth picture of a banana, and asking a five-year -old which one is different.
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?