Evolution's Brick Wall

[AV1611VET]

But the statement I was responding to was that abiogenesis and evolution do away with a need for God. That is a false statement.

Then why do academians say that if all knowledge was erased, and we had to start over without the Bible, evolution would eventually return to our data banks?

 

[Speedwell]

Then why do academians say that if all knowledge was erased, and we had to start over without the Bible, evolution would eventually return to our data banks?

Because evolution is based on empirical observation. It's about objective reality, which would continue to exist if all human knowledge was erased, and would still exist when we started to make empirical observations again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because evolution is based on empirical observation.

And what does Psalm 19 say about empirical observation?

 

[Speedwell]

And what does Psalm 19 say about empirical observation?

LOL! One of my favorites. "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handiwork."

What it doesn't say is anything at all about the literal historicity of Genesis. Which helps make my point, which is, that science does not do away with the need for God, it merely dismisses a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which helps make my point, which is, that science does not do away with the need for God, it merely dismisses a literal interpretation of Genesis.

If you want to go back to Square One, then I will too.

Science filters God out of its equations.

And in so doing, errs greviously.

This is one of my favorite pics.

I wish I had one to hang on my wall.

 

[Speedwell]

If you want to go back to Square One, then I will too.

Science filters God out of its equations.

And in so doing, errs greviously.

So what? Science merely limits itself to natural causality. It does not eliminate or deny supernatural causality, it leaves that subject to other disciplines.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm not trying to trick you into accepting macroevolution.

Why did you think I thought you were trying to trick me?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, but you certainly act like we are. In fact, as I remember, you made that point specifically early on in the lengthy discussion about what a theory is and whether it is "proven or not--that we were changing the definitions to try and trick you.

Where? I need to see what I said exactly before I can comment.

 

[Speedwell]

Where? I need to see what I said exactly before I can comment.

Too much trouble. All we have to do is wait; It'll come up again.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And therein lies the rub: theories aren't 'proven' fact. Theories exist to explain facts.

This is why I keep suggesting starting with the basics of science. By jumping ahead you're relying on incorrect fundamentals.

No, they aren't proven, and not because they cannot be, but because no one can prove them, and that brings me to the following point.

One thing I do want to get straight, for the record, something that no one seems to disagree with...do we all agree theories are basically speculation?

What do you mean "jumping ahead"





And this reinforces the above: starting with an incorrect basis for how science works only results in an incorrect conclusion about scientific theories.

The only point that is being made in this thread is that creationists in this discussion don't understand science.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Read the words on the posted picture.

If you can't recognise from those words which of the two people is being intellectually dishonest, then no amount of words would make you understand it.

Not an answer, and all this mess about you saying how honest you are in whatever way...sorry, but I've seen way to much, and have even brought much of it up here, and explained it thoroughly, so...

 

[AV1611VET]

So what? Science merely limits itself to natural causality. It does not eliminate or deny supernatural causality, it leaves that subject to other disciplines.

And, as I said:

Spoiler

errs greviously

 

[Speedwell]

And, as I said:

Spoiler

errs greviously

I don't see why. Does auto mechanics err grievously by not treating of pastry cooking?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Translation: I can not accept the evidence because I have a priori religious beliefs that don't agree with the evidence. And when my beliefs don't fit the evidence, then it must be the evidence that is incorrect....

And? Didn't I just say that was a fact in the very post you're replying too?

That and the vice versa.

That's again exactly what we find.

Covering most of your post, as I already commented, that's what you choose to see is going on there...the real missing link, is no proof, just as you claim we have no roof there is a God...end of story.

See, this is exactly the intellectual dishonesty I was referring to with the Ken Ham / Bill Nye picture.

Honestly, and once again, you have already made a mess out of that area, so your talk means very little.

What you are really saying, is unless we agree with what you have conjured to be a factual explanation, we are "intellectually dishonest"...

And this evidence, as I must have stated several times already, is what you "see" as evidence, while it definitely is not necessarily that, yet you rely on that to make what you are touting as a factual statement of honesty, and that's not being honest at all. Do you now see where you ere there, and instead of being honest you are being quite the opposite?

And now, I'll point out that you haven't answered a SINGLE ONE of my questions.

Now it's your turn. Answer my questions.

You can't, can you?

Really, never a single question? Is that honest?

Also I only skimmed it for question marks, but didn't see a single question in that post...so what questions do you want answered, I summed up what I thought of the gist of most of your post, then commented on the rest.

Also, you seem the be indicating I'm being unfair about taking on my share of the questions, but didn't you flat cop out on the last one to you on can a theory be proven with some excuse? Then, not that I will, but I assume it would be fair for me to do the same?

Sounds somewhat dishonest to accuse me of something you do yourself? Doesn't it?

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, your parody was rather silly......

Go ahead, explain for him how his replicating molecule evolves when the very water dissolves it apart before it has time to do anything.

Go ahead, change your goalposts.....

Laughable and agreed, just plain silly on your part....

You have yet to show any evolution of anything......

Finches becoming finches, bacteria becoming bacteria and fruit flies becoming fruit flies gets you nowhere....

And now abra cadabra and other magic words: "a few million years"

Organic molecules exist in water solutions all the time. They even exist in the vacuum of space.

Do even know what "moving the goal posts" means? It's used to describe someone requesting some kind of evidence, and then changing the request once the original request is met.

In my experience no evolutionist on this board has ever declared that they have an explanation for abiogenesis. But we have repeatedly provided current examples, genetic evidence and fossil evidence for evolution.

How do I explain abiogenesis as an explanation for evolution? I can't, no one has a theory of abiogenesis. BUT responding to people demonstrating evidence for evolution being an explanation for the diversity of life with a request for an explanation for abiogenesis IS you "moving the goal posts".

You repeated "I know you are, but what am I" use of the fallacy is trite and childish.

It is unfortunate that evolutionists try to separate the origin of life from the evolutionary process. Both promote Naturalism: no God needed. Such is clear to see. Only natural processes needed.

Both do away with a Creator needed.

And evolutionists wonder why we associate them together? Again, it is very clear to see.

Yes we know that you care about both because they offend you preferred beliefs, but that association alone doesn't link their evidence.

One (evolution) is a theory with plenty of evidence for it and the other (abiogenesis) is an idea seemingly consistent with forces and entities in evidence.

If you found a magical time portal that showed something supernatural creating the first life on Earth that wouldn't remove all the evidence for evolution occurring.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not an answer, and all this mess about you saying how honest you are in whatever way...sorry, but I've seen way to much, and have even brought much of it up here, and explained it thoroughly, so...

You remain in denial.

It's right there.....

What will convince you?
The honest person: "evidence".
The dishonest person: "nothing".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Organic molecules exist in water solutions all the time. They even exist in the vacuum of space.

Do even know what "moving the goal posts" means? It's used to describe someone requesting some kind of evidence, and then changing the request once the original request is met.

In my experience no evolutionist on this board has ever declared that they have an explanation for abiogenesis. But we have repeatedly provided current examples, genetic evidence and fossil evidence for evolution.

How do I explain abiogenesis as an explanation for evolution? I can't, no one has a theory of abiogenesis. BUT responding to people demonstrating evidence for evolution being an explanation for the diversity of life with a request for an explanation for abiogenesis IS you "moving the goal posts".

You repeated "I know you are, but what am I" use of the fallacy is trite and childish.


Yes we know that you care about both because they offend you preferred beliefs, but that association alone doesn't link their evidence.

One (evolution) is a theory with plenty of evidence for it and the other (abiogenesis) is an idea seemingly consistent with forces and entities in evidence.

If you found a magical time portal that showed something supernatural creating the first life on Earth that wouldn't remove all the evidence for evolution occurring.

Ethanol Precipitation of DNA and RNA: How it works - Bitesize Bio

"Because of these charges, polar molecules, like DNA or RNA, can interact electrostatically with the water molecules, allowing them to easily dissolve in water."

You all can avoid the problem all you like, but it won't go away because you stick your head in the sand.....

 

[Jimmy D]

Then all things were created fully formed from the start.... But your real problem is starting...... Water is a universal solvent. RNA, DNA, peptides, sugars, amino acids, all the building blocks of life dissolve in water, not form.....

What a load of nonsense.

Researchers in Italy have reconstructed one of the earliest evolutionary steps yet: generating long chains of RNA from individual subunits using nothing but warm water.

How Was RNA Polymerization Started?
A key step missing in the reconstruction of the origin of living systems is an abiotically plausible synthesis of RNA. To fill this gap, for the robust synthesis and the simultaneous presence of all the necessary nucleic acid precursors (which is possible in principle (22)), an abiotic procedure for their activation and a thermodynamically sound polymerization mechanism are needed.

Using this logic we have analyzed nucleotide oligomerization in the conceivably simplest solvent and environment: water at temperatures between 40 and 90 °C. Despite the limits set in principle by the standard-state Gibbs free energy change problem (3, 4), we observed that the process does actually take place in water and report the nonenzymatic formation of RNA chains in water from 3′,5′-cyclic nucleotides.

We describe three mechanisms for nonenzymatic RNA generation: RNA polymerization from monomers, RNA ligation, RNA extension by polymerization on pre-existing oligomers, and ligation. RNA ligation was recently reported in a model study performed on Poly(A) oligomers (10).

We observe that 3′,5′-cGMP polymerized into RNA chains at least 25 nucleotides long (Fig. 1), the predominant oligomer being the 8-mer. At the optimal 1 mm concentration, synthesis was fast, a Navg of 11.8 being reached within 1 min, followed by slow stepwise further growth. Canonical 3′,5′-phosphodiester bonds were formed, as determined by RNase sensitivity. 3′,5′-cAMP polymerized more slowly to oligomers that reached an Navg of 5.32 within 1 h. These oligomers expanded their size by inter-fragments ligation for a period of at least 200 h, yielding molecules >100 nucleotides long.


"Proto-RNA Bases" Assemble in Water, Hint at Origins of Life

Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology are exploring an alternate theory for the origin of RNA: they think the RNA bases may have evolved from a pair of molecules distinct from the bases we have today. This theory looks increasingly attractive, as the Georgia Tech group was able to achieve efficient, highly ordered self-assembly in water with small molecules that are similar to the bases of RNA. These “proto-RNA bases” spontaneously assemble into gene-length linear stacks, suggesting that the genes of life could have gotten started from these or similar molecules. The research is published online in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ethanol Precipitation of DNA and RNA: How it works - Bitesize Bio

"Because of these charges, polar molecules, like DNA or RNA, can interact electrostatically with the water molecules, allowing them to easily dissolve in water."

You all can avoid the problem all you like, but it won't go away because you stick your head in the sand.....

What problem? The one you invented based on misinformation, ignorance and / or sheer dishonesty?

Myeah, those are only imaginary problems.
We don't need to care about imaginary things.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What problem? The one you invented based on misinformation, ignorance and / or sheer dishonesty?

Myeah, those are only imaginary problems.
We don't need to care about imaginary things.

I know, because everything in your theory is imaginary.....