Astrophile
Newbie
- Aug 30, 2013
- 2,338
- 1,559
- 77
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Widowed
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.
So how do you know that you are a Christian?How do you know who is or who is not a Christian? Jesus tells us that no one knows:
I've never stated that the mechanism of abiogenesis was fully understood. However, as more and more abiogenesis experiments are allowed to run longer, we will get more answers.basically because it's just a belief. and there is still a debate over this belief even today:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscentsci.7b00325
"Despite decades of research, how life began on Earth remains one of the most challenging scientific conundrums facing modern science"
Sonochemical Synthesis: Did Life Originate Inside Collapsing Bubbles? | American Council on Science and Health
"The origin of life is a profound mystery. Once life arose, natural selection and evolution took over, but the question of how a mixture of various gases created life-giving molecules that arranged into structures capable of reproducing themselves remains unanswered"
Oh my gosh, calling it a "soup" was always a bit of a joke, and the RNA world hypothesis is not that.again: just a belief with more problems:
"For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a "primordial soup" of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the "soup" theory has been overturned in a pioneering article which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm
I think it is generally safe to assume that people that claim NOT to be Christian are being honest, unless they live in a country in which Christians are persecuted. Otherwise, there's no motivation to lie and claim not to be a Christian when one actually is.How do you know who is or who is not a Christian? Jesus tells us that no one knows:
Hey bhsmte
Lets look at this conversation you initiated
Bhsmte - "How do you go about demonstrating what you believe the truth to be?"
Icon - "How do i clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence. What type of proof do you expect my dear?"
Bhsmte - "Something besides your opinion,"
The type of proof you expect is something besides my opinion!
When what the world tells you contradicts what the Bible tells you then the world is wrong.
We need to conform our theology to what the Bible says and not what the world says.
If the world tells you we all evolved from a common ancestor and the bible says we did not then the world is wrong and we should conform our theology to scripture rather than the world.
You edited my responses. I asked for evidence that was objective and could be independently verified.
Well, someone sure likes editing. Of the various standards of evidence among the atheists here, mine is probably the lowest. I'd start seriously questioning myself if exposed to a legitimate miracle entirely unrelated to the origin of life. An example of what I would consider to be a legitimate miracle is "an individual text that anyone can read, regardless of language or literacy, and get the exact same message out of it". Of course, I mean something like a singular book here, not a text that has been translated into many languages and put into audio recordings. The actual content of the message would be irrelevant to me considering it a miracle, though. If that is too pretentious for your tastes, another example would be a thick, otherwise ordinary, oval piece of granite that would skip across any body of water, regardless as to who threw it, how it was thrown, and the distance it'd have to travel.Hey bhsmte
Lets look at this conversation you initiated
Bhsmte - "How do you go about demonstrating what you believe the truth to be?"
Icon - "How do i clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence. What type of proof do you expect my dear?"
Bhsmte - "Something besides your opinion,"
The type of proof you expect is something besides my opinion!
In our absurd hypothetical the first car is designed and subsequent cars are evolved, so your objection that the chassis, wheels, and engine couldn’t evolve aren’t problematic.thanks. but the problem is there is no stepwise from one complex system to another one. for instance: if we want to add a sonar system it will need at least several parts at once. or even more simple: the car itself cant evolve stpwise since it need at least several parts like wheels and engine and a chassis. so it cant evolve stepwise.
I can pull up a YouTube video of his explanation of this concept if you’re interested.
Yes, I see the problem. The problem is with your argument. First of all, if it's identical to a robot, then it's a robot, thus couldn't have evolved naturally, because robots don't do that.
Second of all, you don't merely get to assume design via. a hasty generalization. Even if motors which we know were made by humans, were made by humans, that does not mean that we get to assume that all motors are the product of humans.
And if you take a look at the needle structure of the Type III secretion system, you can see just how similar it is to the structure of the flagellum:
So if this isn't evidence that the bacterial flagellum could have evolved naturally from analogous structures, I'm curious about what you think would count as evidence for you.
being wrong in one specific instance cannot and does not prove that they are wrong in all instances.
Having a spare tire isn't "bad design", since there is a use for a spare tire.
In our absurd hypothetical the first car is designed and subsequent cars are evolved, so your objection that the chassis, wheels, and engine couldn’t evolve aren’t problematic.
but lets check how the car suppose to evolve in the first place. so basically we will need at least 3 parts (actually just the engine need at least se veral parts). so basically a car cant evolve stepwise (this example also falsified dawkins example of the eye evolution, since a minimal light detector need at least several parts too).
very simple. take a look at this compass:
(image from here:Compass – Android Apps on Google Play)
in general it's very similar to a watch. but there is no stepwise from this compass to a watch. for instance: we need to add a motion system to the springs to make them move and also a battery. the same with the ttss and flagellum comparison. so no, we cant change one system to anothher by small steps.
If you don't know what the function of the object is, you can't tell whether it is bad design or not.right. since you already know the function of a spare tire. but if you didnt know what the function of a spare tire is, you can conclude a bad design too. this is the problem with this argument.
Then you don't understand the criteria.this wheel looks very odd since it's in the air instead of the ground. many peopels dont know what is the purpose of this wheel. so since it's looks like bad design, it's indeed a bad design according to your criteria.
I don’t see any way a car can evolve from raw materials, sure. But I thought we were talking about cars that somehow reproduced evolving into planes?but lets check how the car suppose to evolve in the first place. so basically we will need at least 3 parts (actually just the engine need at least se veral parts). so basically a car cant evolve stepwise (this example also falsified dawkins example of the eye evolution, since a minimal light detector need at least several parts too).
what is the problem? if you talking about the species level then we can explain it without a design. just by a natural process. but in the family level it's another story, since it's about different creatures.
it doesnt realy matter since they both need several parts. in the car example it's more simple to show the concept of minimal complexity. so we both agree that such a car cant evolve from a self replicating materials? if so then a creature cant evolve stepwise too, and therefore stepwise evolution is impossible.I don’t see any way a car can evolve from raw materials, sure. But I thought we were talking about cars that somehow reproduced evolving into planes?
Gee, you ever think that if evolutionists always tell you the same thing, that maybe you're just wrong about what they're claiming?
A species isn't "one thing", it's a category which describes a group of organisms.
What you're describing sounds more like alchemy than evolution, and that's the problem. If you can't even frame your complaint in a way that matches what you're supposedly complaining about, then the problem isn't with what you're complaining about, the problem is with your understanding of what you're complaining about.
All of the evidence points to common ancestry, if that's what you mean. But "one thing" really isn't a particularly accurate description of that.
So what? They do have numerous things in common which point to them all being related.
"We" are not a single thing. So, even by basic grammar, you're wrong.
And while we have a common ancestor, we actually evolved from a far more recent group of organisms. Our group of many organisms evolved from another group of many organisms.
You're conflating having a common ancestor with evolving directly from that common ancestor.
No, "we", being "humans", were always humans. If something wasn't a human, then it's not a part of "we", now is it?
That is among the least accurate descriptions of evolution I've ever seen. It doesn't even make sense.
How could a spider have ever been anything other than a spider, when, by the law of identity, A must equal A? A spider is, by definition, a spider.
Your argument relies on gibberish, and when you do that, of course anything you say about it will sound silly. But that's not what evolution actually says. If you have to distort evolution to disprove it, then you haven't demonstrated anything, other that that you're OK with dishonestly making straw man arguments.
What evolution actually says is that, most likely, a species which was similar to spiders, but was not actually a spider species itself, over many generations evolved into spiders and other arachnids. And when we look at the fossil record and the genes of spiders, what we find matches that prediction. Thus, this verifiable prediction is evidence for evolution.
Here is a simple animation based on fossils we've found, shown in the order in which they appeared in the fossil record, over a period of about 100 million years:
Why is it unreasonable to look at this sequence and come to the conclusion that these are likely related fossils, which demonstrate an evolution from fish to land animals? Especially when the genes of existing species of fish and reptiles supports this conclusion?
Creationists have never adequately explained this evidence.
I gave you numerous examples of evidence. I have yet to see you refute any of it.
If you want to act like you have an actual argument, then "nuh-uh" isn't going to cut it.
Don't merely claim something. That isn't an argument. Why exactly is it supposedly apples and oranges? Why isn't looking at all of the convergent data which points to the most probable explanation a reasonable thing to do in both cases, and yet you're only OK with doing that in one of those cases?
Also, you totally dodged my question to you: What exactly would evidence of evolution look like to you? (And please, make sure what you're asking for is something that evolution actually predicts would occur.)
Please don't dodge this question again, as it cuts to the heart of whether you care about what is likely to be true or not.
But that would be a supernatural process, since God is a supernatural being. Also, the creation of complex living things from non-living matter and without ancestors is not a natural process.
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?