Infinite monkey theorem vs first life

[loveofourlord]

Where does the bible indicate you are right? I'll be happy to show you scripture that backs my end up.

And again, what is it screaming...how do the screams back you up? I need details, not just talk.

you've been here long enough to have seen the answers to why science backs up evolution, though if you think evolution is random, and akin to a tornado in a junk yard I guess not.

but lets start somewhere simple, feathers on dinosaurs, funny how scientists already said birds were dinosaurs and gee we find the evidence right where we expected it.

Where does the bible indicate there isn't a place where Satan could take Jesus to the top of that would show him all of the world, obviously no place exists, so was either metaphor or a vision. or are you going to argue that like genesis we must assume that earth is flat?

 

[durangodawood]

...nothing I have ever seen existed unless it was created.

As for the whole universe, I dont know how we'd judge whether it was created, or part of an eternal uncreated order. There's just no way to tell.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As for the whole universe, I dont know how we'd judge whether it was created, or part of an eternal uncreated order. There's just no way to tell.

All else being the same, Ockham's Razor should apply, i.e. parsimony - don't unnecessarily multiply conceptual entities.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I never said or even implied that the Bible is inadequate. It is the revealed Word of God, after all. You may interpret it any way you wish, but your interpretation of Genesis as accurate literal history is not necessarily better or true than anybody else's. It is not, and never has been normative for all Christians.

OK, how do you interpret the bible to insinuate evolution over man being created there and then in his entirety? Show us the evidence in scripture that leads us to believe how you do.

You may want to consider the following verses to defend you end of this, but please be specific what part of those verses, if any, causes you to believe man evolved over being made from the dust of the earth then and there.

I simply don't think you can give us anything without some stretched to the moon, way out improbability that you will call a possibility, but have at it just the same.

Genesis 1:26-27

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Genesis 2:7

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

1 Corinthians 15:45

So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL " The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.


Genesis 2:19

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

 

[Kenny'sID]

As for the whole universe, I dont know how we'd judge whether it was created, or part of an eternal uncreated order. There's just no way to tell.

I don't expect you to know. All I can discuss with a none believer is likelihoods, what is logically outrageously silly and what is logically viable

 

[Speedwell]

OK, how do you interpret the bible to insinuate evolution over man being created there and then in his entirety? Show us the evidence in scripture that leads us to believe how you do.

The evidence is in the text as to what kind of narrative it is. The most likely conclusion is that it is an etiology.

You may want to consider the following verses to defend you end of this, but please be specific what part of those verses, if any, causes you to believe man evolved over being made from the dust of the earth then and there.

There is nothing in the text to indicate that man evolved. Why should there be?

I simply don't think you can give us anything without some stretched to the moon, way out improbability that you will call a possibility, but have at it just the same.

I don't have to give you anything at all. You don't own the Bible nor are you in a position to dictate to other Christians how to interpret it. You are free to interpret the Genesis stories any way you please. All you are being asked to do is to not be nasty to other Christians who have come to different conclusions about it.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't expect you to know. All I can discuss with a none believer is likelihoods, what is logically outrageously silly and what is logically viable

Well its definitely logically silly to extrapolate from the behavior of objects in-time (objects within the universe) to the necessary behavior of objects possibly outside/beyond time, like universes themselves. Its assuming way too much.

 

[Kenny'sID]

you've been here long enough to have seen the answers to why science backs up evolution, though if you think evolution is random, and akin to a tornado in a junk yard I guess not.

I've been here long enough to know things start falling apart quickly when we attempt get into the details. Investigation into the claims are also riddled with excuses, or extremely weak evidence that was made out to be something it's not when we try to dig deeper....much like what you have introduced here:

but lets start somewhere simple, feathers on dinosaurs, funny how scientists already said birds were dinosaurs and gee we find the evidence right where we expected it.

I suggest you take a closer look before I dignify your very weak "evidence" with comment, birds are not dinosaurs, not unless you wan to call all creature from that era, a dino. Take a look and show me how birds are not birds but dinosaurs, and vice versa? Hint...."feathered Dinosaurs"

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well its definitely logically silly to extrapolate from the behavior of objects in-time (objects within the universe) to the necessary behavior of objects possibly outside/beyond time, like universes themselves. Its assuming way too much.

What objects specifically? and how did they get here from empty space?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I don't have to give you anything at all. You don't own the Bible nor are you in a position to dictate to other Christians how to interpret it. You are free to interpret the Genesis stories any way you please. All you are being asked to do is to not be nasty to other Christians who have come to different conclusions about it.

Yikes!

Had you known how that sounds to me/maybe oithers, I seriously doubt you would have said it.

Where did I so much as indicate I "own the bible"? And even though it was made up, how did such a comment relate to anything?

Question 3) Where did I so much as indicate I was dictating to others how to interpret the bible? Does my arguing my end of this really say that to you, or was that just another attempt to untruthfully blow something up into a defense when it's just nothing?

What you have there is something that makes no sense and attempts to take the place of an answer you are unable to give. If we think something might be factual, we simply need to have reason to believe it is, and unless you get your info from someplace other than the bible, you would need you show me where the bible gives you reason to believe. If you cannot do that fine, but, and this is just form friendly advice, I'd a not answered at all before I answered how you did. that's not a dictation, only a suggestion.

 

[durangodawood]

What objects specifically? and how did they get here from empty space?

Space time is proposed to exist within the universe, like its a property of the universe.

It doesnt even make sense to say the universe itself exists in or came from "empty space".

Currently, beyond-the-universe is utterly closed off to us, except via mathematical speculation. There's no reliable way to reason about the necessary conditions beyond the universe, what "causes" universes, and so on. Even the idea of "cause" breaks down if the universe exists "outside of" time, which it may well, for all we know.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Space time is proposed to exist within the universe, like its a property of the universe.

It doesnt even make sense to say the universe itself exists in or came from "empty space".

Currently, beyond-the-universe is utterly closed off to us, except via mathematical speculation. There's no reliable way to reason about the necessary conditions beyond the universe, what "causes" universes, and so on. Even the idea of "cause" breaks down if the universe exists "outside of" time, which it may well, for all we know.

One simple question was all I asked of you, but thanks anyway.

 

[loveofourlord]

I've been here long enough to know things start falling apart quickly when we attempt get into the details. Investigation into the claims are also riddled with excuses, or extremely weak evidence that was made out to be something it's not when we try to dig deeper....much like what you have introduced here:



I suggest you take a closer look before I dignify your very weak "evidence" with comment, birds are not dinosaurs, not unless you wan to call all creature from that era, a dino. Take a look and show me how birds are not birds but dinosaurs, and vice versa? Hint...."feathered Dinosaurs"

because we've found the feathers on dinosaurs, preserved enough that they were able to be reversed egineedred to tell their original colours, we have that dinosaur tail with feathers found in amber, among many others. And we know birds are dinosaurs because the branch of dinosaurs that became modern dinosaurs is where the feathers are found. It wasn't reptiles, or sauropods, but theropods where they show up. Funny how we had already figured out birds were dinosaurs decades before we started to find the fossils.

And give some real examples that arn't just creationists going, "Uhuh." or quote mining.

 

[Kenny'sID]

because we've found the feathers on dinosaurs, preserved enough that they were able to be reversed egineedred to tell their original colours, we have that dinosaur tail with feathers found in amber, among many others. And we know birds are dinosaurs because the branch of dinosaurs that became modern dinosaurs is where the feathers are found. It wasn't reptiles, or sauropods, but theropods where they show up. Funny how we had already figured out birds were dinosaurs decades before we started to find the fossils.

And give some real examples that arn't just creationists going, "Uhuh." or quote mining.

Theropods, I knew you could do it. So you're still saying birds are dino's, when in reality theropods are thropods, birds are birds and dono's are dino's?

What's funny is what so-called science deduces from a bunch of feathered dinosaurs. Also, remember we have a head, legs to run with and many of the same internals a dino has but dino's are not men and men are not dino's.

And on your general point of evidence for evolution, when did we stop evolving?

 

[durangodawood]

What objects specifically? and how did they get here from empty space?

1. a teapot
2. it didnt

 

[Speedwell]

Yikes!

Had you known how that sounds to me/maybe others, I seriously doubt you would have said it.

I know exactly how it sounds to you. That is why I wrote it as I did.

Where did I so much as indicate I "own the bible"? And even though it was made up, how did such a comment relate to anything?

Do you not regard literal inerrancy as the "default" interpretation of Genesis for Christians? Is that not why you demanded "proof" that it might be otherwise? Is that not why you feel free to denounce Christians who disagree with you about the literal inerrancy of Genesis as 'not believing the Bible?'

Notice as well that I am not demanding that you "prove" your interpretation. What gives you the right to demand that I "prove" mine?

Question 3) Where did I so much as indicate I was dictating to others how to interpret the bible? Does my arguing my end of this really say that to you, or was that just another attempt to untruthfully blow something up into a defense when it's just nothing?

What you have there is something that makes no sense and attempts to take the place of an answer you are unable to give. If we think something might be factual, we simply need to have reason to believe it is, and unless you get your info from someplace other than the bible, you would need you show me where the bible gives you reason to believe. If you cannot do that fine, but, and this is just form friendly advice, I'd a not answered at all before I answered how you did. that's not a dictation, only a suggestion.

I answered that already. I do not believe that the Garden story in Genesis was intended by its author to be 100% accurate literal history and I come to that belief by examination of the literary character of the text itself.

 

[loveofourlord]

Theropods, I knew you could do it. So you're still saying birds are dino's, when in reality theropods are thropods, birds are birds and dono's are dino's?

What's funny is what so-called science deduces from a bunch of feathered dinosaurs. Also, remember we have a head, legs to run with and many of the same internals a dino has but dino's are not men and men are not dino's.

And on your general point of evidence for evolution, when did we stop evolving?

Nice try of deflection, yeah, funny how the only animals other then birds that have scales and feathers are dinosaurs? And just happens to be the very line of dinosaurs that follow from them. Theropods are dinosaurs, they split off from sauropods rather early. You keep denying reality but funny how the predictions of evolution later got proven. Explain how theropod dinosaurs fit exactly what we would expect, and later were proven to have many of the characteristics.

And no UHUH won't be accepted.

human share many characteristics from dinosaurs, but if we were to be dinosaurs there are many things we DON'T share, but do share with other apes and monkey's showing that our ancestors were too. Funny how all you guys have is fingers in your ears going, "That doesn't count." refute without being silly.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Theropods, I knew you could do it. So you're still saying birds are dino's, when in reality theropods are thropods, birds are birds and dono's are dino's?

Therapods are sub-order of the dinosaur clade. Birds are modern therapods, derived from the coelurosauria clade of therapods.

when did we stop evolving?

We're still evolving.

 

[Aussie Pete]

How is this relevant to what pitabread said?



Once again, I ask how evolution is affected if the topic of OOL is conceded? I will grant you, for this discussion, that god created first life. What does that have to do with how life has changed since then?

Evolution still does not work. Please don't tell me that micro-evolution is the same as macro evolution. One example: How does a cold blooded creature develop a complex closed loop heating and cooling system to regulate blood temperature. If any part of the system fails, the creature dies. I know something about thermal regulation in industrial applications. It is highly complex. You need to sense the temperature, decide upper and lower limits, program responses to changing temperature (such as changing blood flow to surface for cooling or subsurface to retain heat), increase or reduce heart rate, activate sweat glands - enormously complex. How does an organism even know that it needs to regulate temperature? Multiply that by digestion, breathing, excretion and knowing what food is. The lung is an astonishing organ for oxygenating blood. How does an organism know that it has to accelerate its breathing rate when physical activity increases? What told it? Obviously I do not believe in "what". Rather, who.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution still does not work.

Of course it works. If it didn't work, it wouldn't be an applied science.

Don't take my word for it though. This is what creationist and biologist Todd Wood has to say on the subject:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.​

The truth about evolution

Please don't tell me that micro-evolution is the same as macro evolution. One example: How does a cold blooded creature develop a complex closed loop heating and cooling system to regulate blood temperature. If any part of the system fails, the creature dies. I know something about thermal regulation in industrial applications. It is highly complex. You need to sense the temperature, decide upper and lower limits, program responses to changing temperature (such as changing blood flow to surface for cooling or subsurface to retain heat), increase or reduce heart rate, activate sweat glands - enormously complex. How does an organism even know that it needs to regulate temperature? Multiply that by digestion, breathing, excretion and knowing what food is. The lung is an astonishing organ for oxygenating blood. How does an organism know that it has to accelerate its breathing rate when physical activity increases? What told it? Obviously I do not believe in "what". Rather, who.

Sounds to me like all of this could be answered by developing a conceptual understanding of basic biology and how evolution itself works. For that, you need to be willing to pursue educational resources on the subject.

I started a thread listing a bunch of free biology and evolution-related courses that can be done online and consumed at one's own pace. It'd highly recommend checking them out: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution