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.
Why be so bent on evidence scientifically attained and then believe in abiogenesis? All that science has continually proved is biogenesis...why suddenly not trust the evidence you all so adamantly demand?
The thing is mutations that give a beneficial function or feature that gives a gain in complexity with animals is very very rare if not at all happening. Mutations will either have little effect and there will be no selection or they will have a deleterious effect. Most changes are a loss of function which may give a variation of existing genes to allow an organism or creature to take on a new environment or condition. But there is no evidence that evolution can grow and create new functions that add complexity say from a fish to a frog or an ape to a human.yes in theory if they are closer to each other on the tree. but lets take frogs and fish I think this was the original example but couldn't find it when I tried looking a while ago.
Fish Y may be 20% different from humans in a gene, while frog X could be 50% different from humans in genes, technically the human might be more closly related to the frog. The thing is the fish has been evolving since the split with humans for hundreds of millions of years, so there may have been some selective pressure that caused that gene to remain stable, while the frog has a pressure that causes it to radically change.
Look at humans, there are some genes between us and apes that are simular, and yet others that radically have changed for one reason or another.
Something like I said often forgotten is that when we split off from a branch on a tree, that tree doesn't stop evolving, it still is moving along it's own branch changing as it goes.
And thats interesting if HGT is true, though that doesn't change evolutions tree, we know that happens with bacteria, why not very rarly with higher life, the trouble is the bacteria/virus and such has to effect the exact sperm cell wich is why it's so rare, but we've known about ERV's wich a viruses leaving DNA in us for years.
I cant prove God with the type of evidence that science would want me to anyway. If God is beyond our reality and is a supernatural agent then how can we ever see that directly.
But then you couldn't disprove there isn't a God either.
Nor can scientists directly prove that there are multiverses or hologram worlds like they suggest.
Nor can they prove that life came from non life directly
or that evolution is true as it has never been observed or proven by test in a lab.
All scientists can do is appeal to the indirect evidence. They can come up with ideas that fit the maths or evidence they see. But you could fit more than one idea via this method.
There is indirect evidence for God or a design in nature.
Test have been done to show that life has design about it and is too complex to have been formed by a naturalistic process.
The finely tuned universe is another example of evidence for design.
Now you can try to explain these things away and that is what a world view will try to do.
They want an explanation that takes God out of the picture.
Its not just about truth but its also about belief. If an atheists doesn't believe in God in the first place then they are going to be motivated to find all the possible reasons why God couldn't have done it.
If these pictures are showing a rich amount of organic material then that makes a case even more so that there should be a lot of life throughout the universe. If we can find it on some random rock out of billions floating in space then chances are it is on many. If its on many then chances are there's a lot of organic material throughout the universe. If there's a lot of organic material then chances are there's a lot of life because evolution says that it can happen by chance. Unless we happen to get very lucky and picked the right rock to look by chance.Another nail in the creationist coffin.
Comet yields 'rich array' of organics.
The ultra religious may claim god sent a comet, or it isn't proven, or whatever. What's becoming clearer is how life is in the Universe, how the claim of life from non life is obsolete. And a step closer to finding why there's only a tiny % of planets with some form of real life.
It's another step to finding out why.Some abiogenesis event necessarily happened.
At one point there was no life. Then there was life.
However it happened, at some point life came into existance where there was no life before.
Abiogenesis necessarily happened. How it happened exactly remains to be figured out. But it is a fact that it happened.
It's another step away from the religious god theories.If these pictures are showing a rich amount of organic material then that makes a case even more so that there should be a lot of life throughout the universe. If we can find it on some random rock out of billions floating in space then chances are it is on many. If its on many then chances are there's a lot of organic material throughout the universe. If there's a lot of organic material then chances are there's a lot of life because evolution says that it can happen by chance. Unless we happen to get very lucky and picked the right rock to look by chance.
The thing is mutations that give a beneficial function or feature that gives a gain in complexity with animals is very very rare if not at all happening. Mutations will either have little effect and there will be no selection or they will have a deleterious effect. Most changes are a loss of function which may give a variation of existing genes to allow an organism or creature to take on a new environment or condition. But there is no evidence that evolution can grow and create new functions that add complexity say from a fish to a frog or an ape to a human.
When you consider that from a fish to a mammal is a fantastic amount of complexity that is impossible. Evolution likes to minimize the effect by saying it happens in tint steps so it doesn't sound as amazing. But the fact is it is still adding a great amount of stuff that wasn't there to begin with. Tests have shown that this cannot happen and if they could would take more time than the earth has been in existence just to evolve small steps.This is not even considering how life could come into existence from non life. Thats why scientists are looking beyond our planet for life because its just to impossible to explain how it could start here on earth.
But scientists can always come up with an explanation about evolution and give a reason for this or that when it seems impossible or when the theory contradicts itself. There is always a way out and more and more explanation has been added with time to explain the contradictions and stuff that doesn't add up with things like convergent or punctuated evolution or ghost linage's. The evidence is subject to interpretation and there is no direct observable and testable evidence to prove it. In fact the evidence is showing that the chances of Darwin's theory of evolution is unlikely and that creatures gain their variety from existing genes or other methods like HGT or epigentics.
If you read the rest of my post or the one after that you will see that I qualified how as a believer we can come to know God through faith. That faith gives us the evidence like it was right in front of us. We come to know God personally and have a relationship with Him. But you can only do this by faith. If everyone could see God now then we would be here on earth and in this reality anymore. We would have gone onto life beyond this material world. That time hasn't come yet but will some day pretty soon by the way things are going.If that is the case, how can you pretend to know anything about this god
I dont know. Why do non believers keep asking for proof of God then. They both go hand in hand. Its like a merry go round. You ask for evidence and we say we cant give it because God in beyond out reality. You say this proves God is not real and then we say you cant disprove God either so you cant really take that position. So it only comes up because non believers set the scenario for it. As a believer I am happy to go along as I am. I believe and know within myself that God is real. I dont need to prove Him to anyone.Why should we need to?
That is what some say. But as we have gone on and are now looking into things that have qualities that seem to go beyond the normal physics and reality even scientists are now coming up with ideas that are pretty far fetched and out of this world like hologram worlds and multiverses and worm holes. If you read the descriptions of these things you will think you are in some science fiction movie. Some scientists are even wanting to loosen up the criteria for what makes falsifiable evidence in proving a theory. Thats because the things they are trying to explain like the fine tuned universe, the ever increasing and expanding universe, uniting relativity and quantum physics and trying to come up with the theory of everything are forcing them to look beyond the normal parameters of the known physics.The difference is that scientists don't usually posit things they can't prove as "truth", like theists tend to do.
You must be kidding. Ive lost count of the number of times I have read how a scientists has shown how life evolved with their experiments. f its not how they have discovered some chemicals that may have started it all or done some experiment that has solved the riddle its how they have found some evidence of life on another planet or meteor as in the case of the comet they have recently been observing. There is a lot of debate and attention going on in this area as it is something that they want to prove.And no scientist claims they can at this point, what is the problem?
You will have to post the evidence then.That is just blatantly false
So I guess you havnt been following the debate. I have posted tons of evidence. You only have to go back a few pages.Really?
I'ld certainly would like to see your testable, falsifiable idea that rivals evolution but accounts for all the data.
This is the kind of stuff people say when they only have very superficial knowledge on how science works.
The finely tuned universe for life. The complex code of DNA which is being found to have even more layers of sophisticated codes within codes that speak a language just like a written text would. But thats right I forgot as Dawkins says evolution has the illusion that it looks and acts like design but its not really designed. The more time that goes by the more complex things become. The more complex it becomes the more explaining has to be done as to how chance mutations which are mostly harmful and deleterious can build more complex things with more function.Such as?
Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors1What were these tests? Where are the publications of the results?
In which peer-reviewed journal were these published?
What methodology was used? How are these results tested?
NO its not and even many scientists acknowledge that its a hard thing to explain away. If there are over 200 constants that are so finely tuned that a tiny change will cause there to be no universe or life then that adds up to more than a chance event. To deny that is being dishonest. It may not point to God but it points to design and it points against a chance naturalistic event causing our existence.You mean, it is another example of the argument of incredulity/ignorance.
I think if you notice that I dont bring God into it that often. The position I take is to try and see things for what they are. I think I dont need to bring God into it. Just let the evidence speak for itself and I am confident that this will point in the direction of God or at the very least show 1) how a naturalistic process cannot be responsible for some of the things we see. 2) that there is some design in things that has to have something that is making that design. Whether its God or an alien or some other strange cause I am not to concerned about at this stage.No... that's what YOU do by "explaining" them through "well, god-dun-it".
I agree but now scientists re starting to appeal to almost faith based ideas to try and explain some of the things they see. Like I said what they are finding in astrophysics and quantum physics and the contradictions the quantum world is having with relativity they cant find the maths to work it out. So they begin to step beyond the normal ways of explaining things with the logic and cause and effect we use in our world and reality. Thats why they talk about strange worlds where all sorts of things can happen. By allowing this to come into the explanation they are also turning to faith based ideas because none of this can be directly verified.You see, science actually looks for proper answers by using objective methodologies instead of subjective opinions influenced by a priori faith based beliefs...
And they will never get that with what they are looking at with trying to unite relativity and the quantum world. How do you test a multiverse or a worm hole. How do you test and verify a hologram world.No, they want an explanation that is supported by evidence and that is verifiable/testable.
Its the same with many of the scientific ideas that scientists propose to be true.Science can't help it that your deity of choice is defined in such a way that it is unfalsifiable and thus untestable.
So has some aspects of what scientists propose.Religions set themselves outside of the realm of scientific discourse.
That's a ridiculous thing to say.
It's like saying that people who don't believe in pink graviton fairies are going to be motivated to find all the possible reasons why pink graviton fairies aren't responsible for gravity.
Thats right because its not about the individual supernatural causes. Its about the supernatural in general. Plus we are talking about the cause and effect of how things like life and our universe comes into existence which will cause us to look for the reason why it can happen. If someone believes that pink fairies are responsible for creating everything then of course they will also look for the evidence for them actually doing it. If a person doesn't believe in God then they will be guided and motivated by this and they wont be looking to God for any answers. Their parameters for evidence will be restricted to certain boundaries that stay within the scientific criteria for verification.To people who don't believe that X exists, X is a complete non-issue.
That doesn't make sense. A fish which is completely different to a human has less changes to their genetics then an ape which already very similar to a human. Both humans and apes have similar limbs and fish have fins. Humans and apes have lungs and fish have gills ect ect. But I agree with you that animals use existing genetics to make changes and thats what the evidence shows in tests. But there are limits to how far those changes can happen.Actually alot of the suff that makes a fish different from a human is already in the DNA it's not like when humans evolved from ape there were 600 new genes, there were just changes to existing genes, wich we know happens as you have like 150 changes from your mother. When fish evolved to land animals majority of changes were to existing genes, maybe some gene duplication and such but majority of it is just changing how genes were expressed. Making a land limb out of fins isn't making 300 new genes again, it's jsut changing how the genes that make a fin get expressed.
This could also be that it comes from the same blue print design. Fin and feet are similar to begin with. The bone structures are similar so the genes will be similar. But that doesn't mean that they were evolved from each other and thats where evolution assumes this because they already believe that this is how all life was created. But they are just interpreting the same evidence in a different way. They are taking the ability of our genetics to vary within a kind and then expanding that to say that it can also make one kind into another. But anything the changes can do they can also undo.as it's been shown fish use many of the same genes we do to form their body plan, it's not some drastically new changes.
HGT is still being researched. They have found evidence for it happening with more complex life more than they thought. It can also be from viruses transferring genetic info into the genomes of animals. But there are other mechanisms which have been discovered which can add genetic changes. There is also evidence that changes can be made by the type of life an animal lives which is not determined by natural selection but by lifestyle. I have read that modern society is developing a fat gene and other genes from our modern lives. So in this sense its not the creature changing by adapting to the environment. But the environmental conditions changing the creature.I think your over analzing HGT and epigenetics, you take, "A few small genes are HGT." and then extrapelate that all changse are from there, fungi bacteria and such genes don't explain what we see, they don't explain the differences as much as the simularities and so on, they don't explain the nested heiarchy that fits as neatly as it does I don't think you understand the subject enough, and are just using creationist site arguments who don't understand them either.
Another nail in the creationist coffin.
Comet yields 'rich array' of organics.
The ultra religious may claim god sent a comet, or it isn't proven, or whatever. What's becoming clearer is how life is in the Universe, how the claim of life from non life is obsolete. And a step closer to finding why there's only a tiny % of planets with some form of real life.
Some abiogenesis event necessarily happened.
At one point there was no life. Then there was life.
However it happened, at some point life came into existance where there was no life before.
Abiogenesis necessarily happened. How it happened exactly remains to be figured out. But it is a fact that it happened.
Archaeopteryx advice is to sit on the side lines and call foul play without participating in the game. Anyone can do that. At least I have some input and then back that up with support rather than keep stating its all wrong without any evidence. If you think somethings wrong then by all means show us. But dont just say it , you need some backup as well.I'm betting your advice doesn't align with his faith beliefs and his desire to protect the same.
You don't know how to play the game. I'm advising you to learn the rules so that you don't embarrass yourself on the field.Archaeopteryx advice is to sit on the side lines and call foul play without participating in the game.
All you're showing us is how badly you don't understand the subject you are pontificating on.At least I have some input and then back that up with support rather than keep stating its all wrong without any evidence. If you think somethings wrong then by all means show us. But dont just say it , you need some backup as well.
Yes, that's right: You think you are hitting goals when you aren't even missing. You haven't even touched the ball! That's how badly you've misjudged the situation.But its funny how I am told to go and do some uni course because I dont know what I'm talking about and that all the evidence I post is also all wrong from the experts and those telling me havnt bothered to do get qualified themselves. It seems we are all wrong when we disagree with what evolution says rather than consider that ah it may be wrong God forbid that we challenge the great theory. You would rather attack the man than deal with the evidence. Thats called playing the man rather than the game.
Its funny here I am responding to something who supports evolution has said about evolution without them posting any support. You never utter the slightest objection to what they say or tell them they are wrong or should go and learn about what they are talking about. Yet when I or someone else who disagrees with evolution objects to what is said its us who are wrong and need education. Thats very biased and one sided. Why dont you tell them the same unless you think that whatever they say is correct no matter what. Could it be that those who say supportive things about evolution are always right in your eyes and those who dont are wrong no matter what. You have deemed yourself the expert judge on all things evolution. Funny that.It's clear that steve hasn't taken my advice.
Total assumption there DH...
one of the products of living systems is not only other living systems but non-living matter/energy...the products of inanimate matter/energy are transformed expressions of this matter/energy and de-evolution into oblivion...
life cannot be said to come from non-living processes (can not and has not been observed, demonstrated, and all tests show otherwise) but non-living matter/energy IS shown to be one of the products of living processes...
It is equally as plausible that "life" is an energizing quality of this Universe that works on Matter/Energy to bring about forms it can work through, or even plausible that it preceded the non-living matter/energy maybe even being responsible for producing it in the first place...
And you are an expert who has played the game and learned the rules. Ummm. You make them up as you go as you stand afar and add a little jibe in here and there without qualification. When I ask if you have learned the subject of biology and evolution at Uni you tell me you havnt but try to say that you have a background in it whatever that means. To me that means you havnt studied it directly enough as a qualification on its own at Uni to be an expert like most of us. Thats the level you are saying we should be at to be able to know and make comments isn't it. Or is it only for those who disagree with what you believe about evolution. Yet you still think this gives you the qualifications to know more than most others and even those who have studied it.You don't know how to play the game. I'm advising you to learn the rules so that you don't embarrass yourself on the field.
You keep saying that but never qualify what you say. Its easy to say that. I can say the same thing If I wanted to without having to justify my comments. They mean nothing without support. At least I give support. At least loveofourlord was good enough to give some feed back even if we disagreed and explain why he disagreed which shows some respect and makes it a two way conversation rather than be dismissive all the time.All you're showing us is how badly you don't understand the subject you are pontificating on.
Yes and your the expert standing on the sidelines.Yes, that's right: You think you are hitting goals when you aren't even missing. You haven't even touched the ball! That's how badly you've misjudged the situation.
I think pshun2404 was meaning that because you believe that life came from non life which is impossible then you are assuming that it happened purely because you believe it had to happen without a God or supernatural force somehow and someway. Because we have life now your only conclusion is that it had to happen through a naturalistic process even though there is no evidence for this. IN fact in some ways its not only an assumption but it is faith based. You believe it happened that way despite having absolutely no direct evidence it did or could.Wut?
How is it an assumption??
At one point there was no life, then there was life.
How is it an "assumption" to say that this means that life came into existance at some point, in some way?????
You're not making any sense at all.
Once, there was no life.
Then, there was life.
Apparantly, that doesn't mean that life came into existance at some point.
Mmmkay.
Please present your evidence that warrants the use of the world "plausible" here.
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?