You forgot to mention the part where they were pulled out of the air. It wasn't an estimate. Just an unsupported quess.
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.
What actually happened was that you asked sfs for an estimate on how many mutations that would take, and he gave you an estimate.
I agree; it overwhelmingly points to intelligence being behind the origin of life!
A bit like evolutionists then. At least the Christian faith has a miracle maker for it's miracles, so it's not a blind faith.
The Bible can't get it wrong because it's the word of God. You would need to speak to experts of Biblical hermeneutics to get the full story. There is a useful comment about this on the following link, although it doesn't go into any great depth: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/contradictions-hanging-on-pillars-of-nothing/
You mean, like love or kindness or moral truth
or perhaps you mean Dark Matter / Dark Energy, which I would say, are very likely to be imaginary?
Can you observe or test the origin of the universe or life? If not, does that mean we don't really exist then, or even the universe for that matter?
You can, by using your own powers of logic and observation.
"It" yes, but they can't be certain what they are watching from so great a distance.
what does it prove in the grand scheme of things? Absolutely zilch, nada, nothing.
And you forgot the mention the post where I explained my estimate, here. And the subsequent post where I provided links to some of the papers in question, here. (Though I've subsequently realized that one of my numbers was off by 50%. But if you're simply going to ignore my posts, more precision doesn't seem very important.)You forgot to mention the part where they were pulled out of the air. It wasn't an estimate. Just an unsupported quess.
If I took the word you just posted...and randomly change out the letters....you would still argue there is information present.
You might be right....letters are information...but your information would be useless.
You continue to fail to show how the mutations add up.And you forgot the mention the post where I explained my estimate, here. And the subsequent post where I provided links to some of the papers in question, here. (Though I've subsequently realized that one of my numbers was off by 50%. But if you're simply going to ignore my posts, more precision doesn't seem very important.)
You continue to fail to show how the mutations add up.
You would think the evos would have answered this question...instead of claiming it is buried amongs the pages of PDF's.
Is there anything else in your life that you accept based on faith? If I showed you a used car and offered to sell it to you, and told you, "It runs perfectly, no need to test anything", would you accept that on faith and buy the car? This is doubly bizarre when you say this:It's not possible to test for God
[W]e should proceed with extreme caution when trying to understand science through the theories of a modern culture that looks at life without considering any possibility of a divine origin for the wonders that we see around us.
So you think the 3,000 pages of "Remembrance of Things Past" should be shrunk down to a couple of paragraphs, because that is all the attention you are prepared to give it.
I kinda figured a big time evo like you could explain it at a level higher than coloring book.
I'll be perfectly honest: I'm not sure how any particular given organelle evolved. It's entirely possible that we just don't know the evolutionary pathway for any given system.Why is it when I post about ID...show the organelle inside of a cell.....then ask how they evolved via a process that uses random chance to change the information in the DNA code...all I hear is crickets?
Do you have an answer? And can you back up that answer with evidence? I don't know the answer, but if you know, I'd like to know.Ever wonder how all that stuff got in there?
I'll be perfectly honest: I'm not sure how any particular given organelle evolved. It's entirely possible that we just don't know the evolutionary pathway for any given system.
However.
The question "how did this evolve" has been asked quite often in the past, usually with the arrogant assumption that there is no possible answer. In essentially every case, the answer was found relatively quickly. We figured out how the motor of the bacterial flagellum evolved. We figured out how the eye evolved. We've been solving these questions for ages now, and the response is always, "Okay, here's the next thing for you guys to figure out."
At what point is it fair to start treating these questions as an annoying distraction?
Do you have an answer? And can you back up that answer with evidence? I don't know the answer, but if you know, I'd like to know.
I am not a biologist. Sfs, however, is.
I wish someone would explain how. From what you post you seem to believe evolutionism happens...because you were indoctrinated into that faith.
No, I'm well aware. I understand that it's phenomenally complex, and that it seems implausible that it could have evolved. But we've been offered countless similar systems, such as the eye or the bacterial flagellum, and we have offered clear evolutionary pathways for them. So what makes you think the complexity of this system makes it impossible that it evolved? Why should we assume that it'll be different this time, when in the past, we've always had the same result? And if we solve this one, will you abandon this line of reasoning, or will you just find another system to call "impossible"?No, it hasn't been figured out. I'm kinda chuckling at your suggestion it has been explained. It becomes apparent to me you don't quite know just how complicated organelle are (which is OK)...and that's not including the process coded for in the DNA to create them.
My answer is....it never was. The BB never was.
No, I'm well aware. I understand that it's phenomenally complex, and that it seems implausible that it could have evolved. But we've been offered countless similar systems, such as the eye or the bacterial flagellum, and we have offered clear evolutionary pathways for them. So what makes you think the complexity of this system makes it impossible that it evolved? Why should we assume that it'll be different this time, when in the past, we've always had the same result? And if we solve this one, will you abandon this line of reasoning, or will you just find another system to call "impossible"?
Yes, I did. The objection remains the same. All that's offered is an implicit argument from incredulity; one that has be offered in the past and has failed. Yes, this system is phenomenally complex. But evolution can produce phenomenally complex systems, and does so with some regularity.First I have to ask...did you watch the video?
From what I understand..they say the number of stars in the heavens is about... 7 E+22.
Later I read where Astronomers have made a discovery suggesting that the universe might have three times as many stars.
Then the atheist-minded tell us things such as....Approximately 13.7 billion years ago, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity.
Ever wonder how all that stuff got in there?
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?