Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[pitabread]

This was his source:

https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

Oh wow, haven't seen Chick tracts in ages. A reliable source of scientific information they are not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh wow, haven't seen Chick tracts in ages. A reliable source of scientific information they are not.

Yet amazingly some people STILL use them as resources.

 

[sfs]

This was his source:

https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

Yikes. I haven't seen a Chick tract in a while either. I had a nice collection of them in the 70s. Even then, as a teenager in a Conservative Baptist church, I knew not to take them as a reliable source of information.

 

[Obliquinaut]

This was his source:

https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

Chick tracts for the win! I love how they depict Lucy! LOL.

 

[Ronald]

You are throwing darts blindfolded here. Yes, science requires data and observation. But other than that you seem to just be throwing around words you picked up in your junior high school science class as if they have some deeper meaning.



What do you mean by "closed system"? Was it because you read that phrase in another scientific instance? You mean like closed systems in thermodynamics? WHat do you mean? And why?

And does it bother you that several people on here who are either scientists or clearly have scientific training are telling you over and over and over again that you are incorrect on your applications of science?

You clearly had an intro science class probably in junior high or high school, so you kinda know the basics. You know some words like "observation" and "data" and you just mush them all together and come up with rules that seem reasonable but really don't cover how science is actually done.

I'm not the one who is "blind". [Chemicals + energy + water + time does not = life] in an open or closed system. Even if you added information to that equation it comes up empty. But of course you would have to ask, Where did this information come from"?
To test if life can spontaneously generate you would have to conduct an experiment in a closed system of course, not allowing any outside living organism to enter into the environment of the experiment.
Louis Pasteur proved this in a simple experiment and demonstrated that micro-organisms would not grow in a special curved flask containing boiled broth when dust or particles were prohibited from entering the flask. This experiment dispels the theory of spontaneous generation. He said, "There is no known experiment where microscopic organisms can come into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves". Life does not create itself from non-life no matter how simple or complex your experiment is. In Prague they devised a laser that they thought was similar to the spark of life created by an asteroid -- not impressive. Scientists say they may be able to create synthetic life in ten years.
You might as well throw your whole TOE since you really must start from the beginning, with how life came into existence. Your scientists are confounded with that one, so you just skip that part and ... oh, well, "We'll deal with that later, let's get on with looking at the similarities of these bones and start grouping them together into families, draw illustrations, etc. ..."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not the one who is "blind". [Chemicals + energy + water + time does not = life] in an open or closed system. Even if you added information to that equation it comes up empty. But of course you would have to ask, Where did this information come from"?

You are using terms that you cannot define and that you do not understand again.

To test if life can spontaneously generate you would have to conduct an experiment in a closed system of course, not allowing any outside living organism to enter into the environment of the experiment.

Umm, no, that is not how one would test abiogenesis.

Louis Pasteur proved this in a simple experiment and demonstrated that micro-organisms would not grow in a special curved flask containing boiled broth when dust or particles were prohibited from entering the flask. This experiment dispels the theory of spontaneous generation. He said, "There is no known experiment where microscopic organisms can come into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves". Life does not create itself from non-life no matter how simple or complex your experiment is. In Prague they devised a laser that they thought was similar to the spark of life created by an asteroid -- not impressive. Scientists say they may be able to create synthetic life in ten years.

No, Pasteur was testing Spontaneous Generation. The thought that MODERN life arose spontaneously. He did not test abiogenesis.

You might as well throw your whole TOE since you really must start from the beginning, with how life came into existence. Your scientists are confounded with that one, so you just skip that part and ... oh, well, "We'll deal with that later, let's get on with looking at the similarities of these bones and start grouping them together into families, draw illustrations, etc. ..."

Nope, simply wrong and an admission of defeat on your part.

You tried to move the goalposts from evolution to abiogenesis. Evolution began after abiogenesis. We know that life evolved once it existed. It does not matter what the source was. God could even have zapped the first cell into life, it still evolved.

But thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

 

[pitabread]

You might as well throw your whole TOE since you really must start from the beginning, with how life came into existence.

How does this make any kind of sense?

It's like arguing that one needs to learn ancient Sumerian before they can learn modern English.

Just because event A occurred before B, doesn't mean we can't study B.

 

[majj27]

[Chemicals + energy + water + time does not = life]

You know, amusingly enough, this is wrong. In fact it's the way ALL life is made.

 

[majj27]

Whoops! DP

 

[Ronald]

As far as I can tell, virtually nothing you think you know about evolution is true. Perhaps you should find better sources of information, like maybe sources that have some actual information.

You want information, but you can't tell me where the information in your evolutionary equations came from. You basically agreed with part of my post because you can't argue with any of the rest. Your whole TOE is weak and falling apart and soon will be destroyed. Nature does nothing by itself without God who created it. Life did not happen by chance, nor can you explain how the mechanism by which species change into different species works. Evolutionists have really strained their brains to find an alternative to God. The Hubbell Telescope was also sent up there to disprove the existence of God. They are straining to find some life on other planets, "Looky here, we have water on Mars, ice ... one of the building blocks of life ... maybe we'll soon find it!" Foolish men like Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. These guys along with Darwin are already judged. Well, you will all experience a rude awakening soon, when "every eye will see Him"! I can't wait, your jaws will drop and you will mourn. You know that feeling when you get sick to your stomach compiled with shame, guilt, depression and fear? Maybe
you'll get angry at the ones who set you on the wrong path initially ... but you will have to take responsibility for your rejection of Jesus, you will be without excuse! Because you invested your life's worth and forfeited your soul banking on the TOE. Information ... it's always been available, but you've rejected it.

 

[pitabread]

Your whole TOE is weak and falling apart and soon will be destroyed.

 

[Ronald]

You are using terms that you cannot define and that you do not understand again.



Umm, no, that is not how one would test abiogenesis.




No, Pasteur was testing Spontaneous Generation. The thought that MODERN life arose spontaneously. He did not test abiogenesis.



Nope, simply wrong and an admission of defeat on your part.

You tried to move the goalposts from evolution to abiogenesis. Evolution began after abiogenesis. We know that life evolved once it existed. It does not matter what the source was. God could even have zapped the first cell into life, it still evolved.

But thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

OK, have it your way.

 

[Ronald]

How does this make any kind of sense?

It's like arguing that one needs to learn ancient Sumerian before they can learn modern English.

Just because event A occurred before B, doesn't mean we can't study B.

We are talking about life processes, how supposedly species change from one to another. You don't think the origin of life should be addressed? All of a sudden life, not simple life, there is no such thing. Even a paramecium has a flagella that is more complex than the space shuttle. All this information in the genetic code of this one-celled organism ... Where did come from? I explained how complicated the information was and yet, all your responses are, Get educated, you're misinformed, been lied to, bla, bla, bla."
Where did the information come from? What is the mechanism or the TOE? You all accept this theory that slime turned into Marilyn Monroe and Einstein over time and that seems easy for you to understand but how the first simple one-celled life form appeared seems complicated to you and so you dismiss it.

 

[pitabread]

We are talking about life processes, how supposedly species change from one to another. You don't think the origin of life should be addressed?

It's not required to study life as it exists or has existed throughout Earth's history.

It's like saying one cannot learn how modern cars work without first studying the original Ford Model T. It's a silly line of reasoning.

All this information in the genetic code of this one-celled organism

Can you define "information" as it specifically pertains to the genetic code? Can you give a unit measure of said "information"? Demonstrate what would constitute an increase and/or decrease of said measure of information?

 

[Ronald]

You know, amusingly enough, this is wrong. In fact it's the way ALL life is made.

You being a Christian say that this is how life is made ... without God? God uses the dust of the earth, elements in dirt, oxygen, water but life comes from life, not a process without God. JESUS is the way, the truth and the LIFE. In Him, all thing consist (are held together). That means all the atoms in the universe are held together by God. He is either in control or He isn't an all powerful God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, have it your way.

How about learning the basics of science? You will not continually make such embarrassing posts as the one that I responded to.

 

[Ronald]

It's not required to study life as it exists or has existed throughout Earth's history.

It's like saying one cannot learn how modern cars work without first studying the original Ford Model T. It's a silly line of reasoning.



Can you define "information" as it specifically pertains to the genetic code? Can you give a unit measure of said "information"? Demonstrate what would constitute an increase and/or decrease of said measure of information?

If you add water + flour + heat = pitabread Take away the heat and you just get dough.
Chemicals + water + energy = non life
Chemicals + water + energy + information = non life
Chemicals + water + information + Life = life
Life = Jesus, without God we can do nothing and we are nothing and there would be no life.
I explained in an elaborate way how complex the information is in one of my posts.

 

[pitabread]

I explained in an elaborate way how complex the information is in one of my posts.

Which post?

 

[Ronald]

How about learning the basics of science? You will not continually make such embarrassing posts as the one that I responded to.

Oh, I'm blushing with embarrassment, you are so right, get me a book by Richard Dawkins, I wanna learn about the origins ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

You being a Christian say that this is how life is made ... without God? God uses the dust of the earth, elements in dirt, oxygen, water but life comes from life, not a process without God. JESUS is the way, the truth and the LIFE. In Him, all thing consist (are held together). That means all the atoms in the universe are held together by God. He is either in control or He isn't an all powerful God.

The Bible makes no such claims about life. You are merely putting your own spin on the Bible.

You do not seem to realize it, but you keep claiming that your god lies. Why hold such a belief?