Picky Picky
Old – but wise?
- Apr 26, 2012
- 1,158
- 453
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
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.
hame.I'm taking my porridge back and going home.
And "imbibing the attitudes of the culture"?? How do you think religious beliefs are passed on!?
Have you ever thought, of asking people why they are a non believer, instead of broad brushing your own reasoning?
Well, I did get curious and come to look at responses to my post. Really I should know better than to reply. This just leads to more logical fallaciesThe "law" of biogenesis is not actually a thing. Two big problems here:
In reality, the correct form of the law of biogenesis is as follows:
- This "law" is self-refuting. Life only comes from life... But unless life existed before the big bang, it had to come from something that wasn't technically alive.
- If you hold your own "theory" (I'll get back to this) up to this scrutiny, it fails, because according to creationism, all kinds of life comes from God - not from their own kind.
The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the conclusion that complex living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, modern life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.Note: "complex". "Modern". These are important caveats, because we already know that life necessarily had to arise from something other than life as we know it.
Statistically impossible? Okay, first of all, are we talking about a modern cell? Yeah, no kidding you couldn't put that back together again with modern technology. Modern cells are the product of billions of years of evolution. This is what a modern bacterium looks like:
It is phenomenally complex. By comparison, here's what the first cell is hypothesized to look like:
Now, we don't know if it looked like this, but this is more or less what we would expect to find: a self-replicating RNA string enclosed in a lipid layer. We already understand how RNA and its building blocks can form in nature, and we've managed to synthesize it. While we have yet to reach a complete understanding, the work is still ongoing, and it is incredibly complex and fiddly work. Meanwhile, any talk of statistics needs to keep in mind that we had the entire surface area of the earth to work with over a period of about a billion years, which does somewhat improve our odds.
It should be easy? Well first of all, as previously pointed out, we would not expect cells today to look or act anything like the cells in the past; modern cells are phenomenally complex. That bacterium I posted above? It's been evolving and adapting for billions of years. There are no "simple cells" any more; they either evolved or died out. But more importantly, we're trying to replicate conditions we cannot access and perform microscopic experiments within those conditions. We're trying to replicate in the lab something which is in fact phenomenally rare and difficult. You drastically undersell the difficulty of these problems.
Evolution and abiogenesis are related concepts. However, once you have life, it doesn't matter where it came from. It doesn't matter if the first single-celled organisms formed via some natural process or by supernatural means; once you have populations that self-replicate imperfectly, you will have mutations and thus evolution. The topics are different and must be addressed differently. The rejection of abiogenesis does not have any effect on the validity of evolution.
Wow, there is so much nonsense to unpack here.
First off, yes, Lucy is "any other ol' Australopithecus". However, the skeleton was far, far more complete than previous specimens at the time (before then, all we had had was a few skulls and a pelvis), and contained some vital information about the species, including the hip bone and the knee bone, which confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that Australopithecus walked upright. This is just one of the many pieces of information that place the species as a clear transitional fossil between humans and apes. And no, the similarities are not minor - what we have here is a clear go-between between humans and great apes.
Secondly, homology means more than you think ("similar homology" is redundant; I'm not sure you know what the term means). We observe a near-perfect overlap between homology in genetics and physiology. This is important, because it means we can use homology to track changes over time as species diversify, and we can use the similarities and differences between species to see how long ago they diverged. The Tiktaalik example below is an excellent one. I'll get to that in a moment.
If you had been getting your information back in 1974 when Lucy was discovered, well, you'd still be wrong, because of things like Java Man, but you wouldn't be as wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
You are very wrong. Human evolution is extremely well-documented. We have many transitional forms, detailing a slow, gradual transition from mostly-apelike to mostly-humanlike.
No. No, it's not. Tiktaalik shows every sign of being a transitional fossil. It's got a few things that separate it from "just a fish" quite clearly.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik2.html
Its morphology does not resemble that of any modern fish. It can move its neck freely; modern fish cannot. Its head is flat and it has nostrils on the top of its head. Fish don't do that. It has a clearly defined bone structure within its fin which you can find in every single tetrapodal animal - fish do not have that. This is part of why homology is so useful. Tetrapods universally have this set of bones. Even those who returned to the water still have them present in their morphology. Fish do not. This indicates that most likely, there was some split in ancestry here. It's not just the similarities - it's also the differences that matter. You don't find fish with this bone structure. They are not, as you erroneously claimed, "just fin bones" - it's the structure you see in all tetrapods, and in no fish.
We use homology to determine ancestry because it demonstrably works. Or is it just a coincidence that when we trace ancestry back through genetics, we come up with the same nested hierarchy that we get when we trace it back through morphology? And the same one we get when we build it via ERVs?
And now you don't even know what the word "theory" means. I'll give you a hint: theories do not become laws. Before you come in here and dispute one of the most well-understood scientific theories in existence, it would behoove you to know the very basics.
This is not even everything wrong with your post. You clearly do not understand the basics of evolution or the evidence you're trying to dispute.
How do you expect them to get good grades and/or keep their jobs nowadays if they don't believe we started out as mutant copy-errors?But hey, if you want to believe you are nothing but an ape update, who am I to burst your bubble? Blessings and bye.
You say "It doesn't matter where life came from..." It doesn't matter to you because you don't want to admit that all the evidence shows life only comes from life and life of the same kind and you don't want to admit that those primal pond stories - not created by creationists of course - are pure pseudo science b.s.
You say "It doesn't matter where life came from..." It doesn't matter to you because you don't want to admit that all the evidence shows life only comes from life and life of the same kind and you don't want to admit that those primal pond stories - not created by creationists of course - are pure pseudo science b.s.
Your bacterium are still bacterium. We have observed bacteria since 1760. So called Cambrian examples are fossilized. Every last one of them, and they multiply at rocket rates, is seen to be turning into a...bacteria...no matter how much they change. So your evidence is really against evolution until you can show a bacteria turning into a non bacteria. Sophistry doesn't replace facts for those who know how to do critical thinking.
With Tiktaalik you rightly call it a fish. Science must have evidence to keep from being pseudo science. The evidence from the fossil? It was a fish. Period.
"Attempts are being made...we believe that in the future we will be able to...probably....likely...we're getting close..." Please learn the difference between hypotheticals and facts. I already gave some data, in my first post, showing how attempts to create life have utterly failed. If you want to believe it's going to happen, well, just don't hold your breath. And, of course, as I already indicated, IF life was ever created in a high tech lab (which I don't believe for a minute will ever happen) would that be due to accidental, random processes of nature, or intelligent designers? Hmmmm?What evidence exactly? Right at this present moment attempts are being made to create "wet life" as it is called.
Almost every claim you made was painfully wrong, though. That's why you're getting this kind of reaction.I only came back here because I realized I had to do an edit. As I said initially, if people don't see what I said already, it's not too likely they will see anything else I said later.
As I said before, if you didn't get it before - including evidence for the Savior - nothing I add in here is likely to make a bit of difference. I'm not on AIG's payroll, however. I don't know a single person associated with it. Good grief. There is so much creation info out there that does not even come from AIG - thoughAIG is great. I know you like to think that believers in creationism can't think for themselves and all slavishly follow Ken Ham or someone else. No, we can think for ourselves. That's why we utterly reject evolution.Y'know, we have zero evidence of life coming from non-life.
We also have zero evidence of life coming from a supernatural creator deity.
Life had to come from somewhere. So the question is, do we want to assume the natural or the supernatural? Well, as Tim Minchin so finely put it, "throughout history, every mystery ever solved has been not magic". The supernatural has been so consistently and constantly wrong that it should be kind of embarrassing to use it as a fall-back at this point. Every single time we've peeked behind the curtain and actually been able to discover the cause for something, it was natural. Things happen because of natural causes, or they happen because of causes we cannot determine. There has literally never been a confirmed case of supernatural causation, and depending on how you define "supernatural", I'm not convinced you even can confirm supernatural causation.
This is the tree of life.
You notice that honkin' big grey-blue part that encompasses most of the chart? That's bacteria. The amount of genetic diversity present among bacteria is nuts. Saying "it's still a bacteria" is like watching one species diverge into both a mouse and an elephant and saying, "Well, they're both mammals", except even then you're quite a few orders of magnitude short. There are a little over 5,100 species of mammals. You can find 38,000 species of bacteria in a single gram of soil.
Every reputable paleontologist disagrees with you on this point. There are no fish with detached skulls. There are no fish with that sort of fin bone structure. Even Shubin's kindergartner's class got into a heated debate about whether it was a fish or an amphibian. It's obvious to a child. And of course to every trained professional who isn't on AiG's payroll.
I already gave some data, in my first post, showing how attempts to create life have utterly failed.
Well, dear you give evidence for yourself. You say that attempts are being made to create life. This is an admission that (1) Attempts to create life are going on. (2) They only have "attempts", no life, just wishful thinking. With your tax dollars and mine.No you didn't.
. As for your comment to me, you said nothing based on science or logic. You also seem to think I care what people here may say. Nope. I do hope that some will see the truth or I would not have posted. But if they don't like me or the posts, oh well. The truth is still the truth and I'm thankful to be on the side of it.Almost every claim you made was painfully wrong, though. That's why you're getting this kind of reaction.
. As for your comment to me, you said nothing based on science or logic. You also seem to think I care what people here may say. Nope. I do hope that some will see the truth or I would not have posted. But if they don't like me or the posts, oh well. The truth is still the truth and I'm thankful to be on the side of it.
Blessings and bye.
Most modern atheism flows from that most seductive of all idols - money. The New Testament seems to be well aware of just how seductive it is:
The love of money is the root of all evil; It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.....; You cannot serve both God and mammon, and so on.
Compared to their ancestors, most people in the West today have never had it so good economically.
Don't write God out of the picture yet.-Lightning and hurricanes used to be attributed to supernatural gods. Now they are well-understood atmospheric phenomena
Don't write God out of the picture yet.-Mountains and earthquakes used to be attributed to gods. Now they are well-understood geological phenomena
Don't write God out of the picture yet.-The efficacy of prayer has been tested repeatedly showing that it is no better than random chance.
PRATTs plus preach and screech.Well, I did get curious and come to look at responses to my post. Really I should know better than to reply. This just leads to more logical fallacies
being presented by Darwin devotees. But maybe, just maybe someone who is being fooled will "get it" so I will reply this once.
You say "It doesn't matter where life came from..." It doesn't matter to you because you don't want to admit that all the evidence shows life only comes from life and life of the same kind and you don't want to admit that those primal pond stories - not created by creationists of course - are pure pseudo science.
Your bacterium are still bacterium. We have observed bacteria since 1760. So called Cambrian examples are fossilized. Every last one of them, and they multiply at rocket rates, is seen to be turning into a...bacteria...no matter how much they change. So your evidence is really against evolution until you can show a bacteria turning into a non bacteria. Sophistry doesn't replace facts for those who know how to do critical thinking.
With Tiktaalik you rightly call it a fish. Science must have evidence to keep from being pseudo science. The evidence from the fossil? It was a fish. Period. There is no evidence it even had descendants much less any that sprouted legs and became air breathing. "Similar homology" is nothing but the correlation does not imply causation logical fallacy. Again, you also use the presuming omniscience logical fallacy when you claim, with all data to the contrary, that you know what happened to its conveniently invisible and evidenceless descendants.
Your lovely pictures of animal bones demonstrate zero. Anyone can put down a bunch of bones and make up wild stories about how this turned into that and many - increasingly less thanks to creation science - will be gullible enough to fall for that line. More pseudo science. No data. Not a shred of data to show those animals descendants', if any, were ever significantly different from them in anyway. All you have is: The presuming omniscience logical fallacy, correlation does not imply causation logical fallacy, incomplete comparison logical fallacy, fallacy of the single cause etc. That's what you've got. A bunch of logical fallacies piled on theories presented as evidence and faith presented as fact, all mixed in well with "impressive" looking pictures and a heap ton of sophistry.
But hey, if you want to believe you are nothing but an ape update, who am I to burst your bubble? Blessings and bye.
Byeeeee!
You're payed on a "christians you convert and send to the lake of fire" basis.
You're propably not that good at it. Step up your game!
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?