Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,375
Reaction score
1,055
Points
170
I don't think anything was selected. the beginning of life was a random thing so it could not have been selected.
The selection for persistent forms that were the precursors to life was not random. The reason one complex protein persisted and another did not was not a random event. The same rules applied everywhere and the same complex proteins kept forming and persisting. That's nonrandom selection operating.
Now, I know you're just making stuff up in your head. Old age can do that to you.

Evolution "came into existence" because abiogenesis occurred. Before abiogenesis, there were no lifeforms on which physical selection could act. Abiogenesis is a fact and a foregone conclusion: once there was no life, then there was life. You can say God did it or not, it is still abiogenesis. You can also say that stars form by magic, not deterministic, physical processes. Buut you would get laughed out of a 10th grade astronomy class
What God did is called Genesis -- beginning of the spacetime, the universe, Earth, and everything in it. He created creation science so we could learn from our world.

Now, there is a religious piece to this, too, because there was an angel who was so strong that he challenged God and wanted to be like God. He lost and was banished to Earth and eventually gained Earth's dominion. What this anti-God angel created was abiogenesis and the rest stating it's okay for humans to not believe in God and that they can be like gods by not believing. He's excellent in turning humans to become like gods with his anti-God or scientific atheism and making them believe there is no God since the 1850s. Scientists who believe in God and his creation science were banished and cannot participate in peer reviews anymore nor teach in public schools. This is why many people here believe what they were taught in schools. They can't figure out for themselves what the truth is anymore.

If the atheists and their scientists had the truth, then they would be able show abiogenesis through experiments (but it's all due to chance so they can't) as well as how humans can access the fourth dimension time and control spacetime. Something or some supernatural being would have had to exist before the big bang in order to cause it, a being who is timeless and spaceless. He would have be in the fourth dimension to control time. Moreover, we rule over three dimensions but have no control of the fourth dimension. Time waits for no humans. All you have to do is die, so I can easily show that. There's also a piece of what happens after you die, but we don't like to talk about that, do we?
 
Last edited:

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
44,976
Reaction score
5,670
Points
1,870
I don't think anything was selected. the beginning of life was a random thing so it could not have been selected.
The selection for persistent forms that were the precursors to life was not random. The reason one complex protein persisted and another did not was not a random event. The same rules applied everywhere and the same complex proteins kept forming and persisting. That's nonrandom selection operating.
Now, I know you're just making stuff up in your head. Old age can do that to you.
It must be frustrating to be so ignorant and incapable that you cant even hang with 7th graders in what appears to be your favorite topic. Then you try to dispute the prevailing theory in the global scientific community regarding abiogenesis by spouting a childish insult...and it just gets sad quickly.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,375
Reaction score
1,055
Points
170
That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."
Which is not correct. Evolution follows a clear progression. Single cell. Multi cell. Vertebrates. Tetrapods. Nothing out of order. That's neither random nor chaotic. We aren't finding rabbit fossils in the Jurassic period, nor will we ever. We don't have a "random chance" of finding a bird fossil in a 2 billion year old rock. The chance is zero.
That isn’t what I meant by random. The mutations are random and sometimes chaotic. Whether they lead to a creature better suited to its environment or to a creature that can’t survive even one day depends on the environment. That part isn’t random.
You're more right than what Fort Fun Indiana is making up.

Yes, I've read of it. It's called the chaos theory and it's all due to chance (which you bring in as mutations).

"Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another

IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: “Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter.” Darwin never did.

To this day Lyell’s question has never received an adequate answer. I believe that is because there isn’t one. Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change.

This is a long-running debate. In 1972, for example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould challenged the assumption that evolutionary change was continuous and gradual. Their “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis argued that change happens in short bursts separated by long periods of stability, as distinct from the more continuous change over long periods expected to be the outcome of natural selection and adaptation.

Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book Natural Selection in the Wild). More recently, and controversially, cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson have pointed out philosophical problems with the adaptationist argument (New Scientist, 6 February, p 28).





--
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
44,976
Reaction score
5,670
Points
1,870
That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."
Which is not correct. Evolution follows a clear progression. Single cell. Multi cell. Vertebrates. Tetrapods. Nothing out of order. That's neither random nor chaotic. We aren't finding rabbit fossils in the Jurassic period, nor will we ever. We don't have a "random chance" of finding a bird fossil in a 2 billion year old rock. The chance is zero.
That isn’t what I meant by random. The mutations are random and sometimes chaotic. Whether they lead to a creature better suited to its environment or to a creature that can’t survive even one day depends on the environment. That part isn’t random.
You're more right than what Fort Fun Indiana is making up.

Yes, I've read of it. It's called the chaos theory and it's all due to chance (which you bring in as mutations).

"Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another

IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: “Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter.” Darwin never did.

To this day Lyell’s question has never received an adequate answer. I believe that is because there isn’t one. Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change.

This is a long-running debate. In 1972, for example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould challenged the assumption that evolutionary change was continuous and gradual. Their “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis argued that change happens in short bursts separated by long periods of stability, as distinct from the more continuous change over long periods expected to be the outcome of natural selection and adaptation.

Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book Natural Selection in the Wild). More recently, and controversially, cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson have pointed out philosophical problems with the adaptationist argument (New Scientist, 6 February, p 28).





--
The "laws of evolution" are just the laws of physics. Randomness and chaos may lead to different physiologies, but nonrandom selection is what produces the ones that persist. He and i are on the same page. You are that flat earther languishing at odds with all the facts.
 
Last edited:

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,375
Reaction score
1,055
Points
170
It must be frustrating to be so ignorant and incapable that you cant even hang with 7th graders in what appears to be your favorite topic. Then you try to dispute the prevailing theory in the global scientific community regarding abiogenesis by spouting a childish insult...and it just gets sad quickly.
Come on. You're the one with the advantage as creation scientists have no access to publishing their papers to the general science community. Moreover, you know very well that creation science cannot be taught in public schools and the universities have completely did away with the Christianity religion and creation science that no one believes in God anymore. We are coming upon Christmas. How many nativity scenes do you see outside people's homes?

However, atheist scientists can't get over the chicken coming before the egg. Or how complex DNA, RNA, and the formations of proteins are. They may believe their lies of a time chronology of evolution, but the scientific experiments or observations and studies do not back them up. Even then, they still go back to their basic time chronology and what the consensus believes about how old the fossils are. The age of the Earth isn't discussed so much anymore because 4.54 billion years (too old) tends to contradict against their best theories. The bottom line is that It's basically, one research piled upon other research like a deck of cards.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
44,976
Reaction score
5,670
Points
1,870
Come on. You're the one with the advantage as creation scientists have no access to publishing their papers to the general science community.
Total horseshit, of course. Any valid science would be published, if creationists had any. You don't.




However, atheist scientists can't get over the chicken coming before the egg
False. There are explanations for the appearance of both RNA and DNA that are consistent with everything we know. You always make this same, stupid error: when scientists have not committed to a particular explanation due to waiting for it to be well studied and well evidenced, you make the idiotic claim that "they can't explain it". You cannot escape your fundamental understandings of the scientific process, and it taints everything you say.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,375
Reaction score
1,055
Points
170
The "laws of evolution" are just the laws of physics. Randomness and chaos may lead to different physiologies, but nonrandom selection is what produces the ones that persist. He and i are on the same page. You are that flat earther languishing at odds with all the facts.
We just agreed that there are no laws of evolution since it's random and chaotic. IOW, it's all due to chance with mutations and the environment (sometimes). We also agreed that natural selection is the non-random part. Let's not bring the laws of physics into biology.

Why don't you give us the what non-random selection produces and how can I see it in action? I already explained there are five types of natural selection and physical and non-random selection are NOT part of it.

ETA: I don't think you know the terms that we are talking about. How embarrassing is it for your opponent to know more than you about natural selection?

Here are the five types of natural selection (non-random) that I brought up -- The 5 Types of Selection
 
Last edited:

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,213
Reaction score
4,396
Points
1,130
That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."
Which is not correct. Evolution follows a clear progression. Single cell. Multi cell. Vertebrates. Tetrapods. Nothing out of order. That's neither random nor chaotic. We aren't finding rabbit fossils in the Jurassic period, nor will we ever. We don't have a "random chance" of finding a bird fossil in a 2 billion year old rock. The chance is zero.
That isn’t what I meant by random. The mutations are random and sometimes chaotic. Whether they lead to a creature better suited to its environment or to a creature that can’t survive even one day depends on the environment. That part isn’t random.
You're more right than what Fort Fun Indiana is making up.

Yes, I've read of it. It's called the chaos theory and it's all due to chance (which you bring in as mutations).

"Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another

IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: “Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter.” Darwin never did.

To this day Lyell’s question has never received an adequate answer. I believe that is because there isn’t one. Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change.

This is a long-running debate. In 1972, for example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould challenged the assumption that evolutionary change was continuous and gradual. Their “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis argued that change happens in short bursts separated by long periods of stability, as distinct from the more continuous change over long periods expected to be the outcome of natural selection and adaptation.

Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book Natural Selection in the Wild). More recently, and controversially, cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson have pointed out philosophical problems with the adaptationist argument (New Scientist, 6 February, p 28).





--

I think it's important to correct creationers who both don't understand and attempt to falsely attribute what Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould actually presented. Frequently. ID'iot creationers will claim that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Eldredge and Gould to explain gaps in the fossil record. The fact is, the theory was proposed to explain the (relative) rarity of transitional fossils, not their total absence. They sought to explain why speciation happens relatively quickly in some cases, more gradually in other cases, and seemingly not at all during some time periods for some species.

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
44,976
Reaction score
5,670
Points
1,870
We just agreed that there are no laws of evolution since it's random and chaotic.
No, "we" didn't. And you are misstating that point made by evolutionary scientists. Not one of them would call it completely random or chaotic, but you imply and even state otherwise, because you are just not very honest. Random evolution would mean we would find mammals on the sea floor that evolved directly from eels. We would find fish on mountaintops, and shellfish in trees. Again, you cant escape your fundamental misunderstading of science in general, and the magical, iron age horseshit that causes to to lie your ass off about this topic.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,375
Reaction score
1,055
Points
170
Total horseshit, of course. Any valid science would be published, if creationists had any. You don't.
I wish, but today's creation scientists have to do each others peer reviews. They aren't going to be published in Nature and Science as pre-1850s. ICR, AIG, creation.com, and others publish the passed papers.

False. There are explanations for the appearance of both RNA and DNA that are consistent with everything we know. You always make this same, stupid error: when scientists have not committed to a particular explanation due to waiting for it to be well studied and well evidenced, you make the idiotic claim that "they can't explain it". You cannot escape your fundamental understandings of the scientific process, and it taints everything you say.
I'm not the advocate of scientific atheism here. Your side still don't have anything. Even if they had, then it prolly go over your head.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,213
Reaction score
4,396
Points
1,130
The "laws of evolution" are just the laws of physics. Randomness and chaos may lead to different physiologies, but nonrandom selection is what produces the ones that persist. He and i are on the same page. You are that flat earther languishing at odds with all the facts.
We just agreed that there are no laws of evolution since it's random and chaotic. IOW, it's all due to chance with mutations and the environment (sometimes). Let's not bring the laws of physics into biology.

Why don't you give us the what non-random selection produces and how can I see it in action? I already explained there are five types of natural selection and physical and non-random are part of it.
"...there are no laws of evolution since it's random and chaotic'"

With reference to the above, there is likely no other statement which better indicates that the ID'iot creationer understands nothing about biological evolution. "Chance" will certainly play a part in biological evolution, but the ID'iot creationer completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and natural selection as a function of environment is the very opposite of chance. "Random chance", in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the building block that natural selection acts upon. Beginning there, natural selection assembles and sorts out certain variations. Those genetic variations which provide greater reproductive success to the organisms possessing those advantageous mutations are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. Biology ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable. Environment changes and when organisms are subject to environmental isolation clearly show adaptation, as different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Mutations that are harmful to the process of adaptation usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,375
Reaction score
1,055
Points
170
I think it's important to correct creationers who both don't understand and attempt to falsely attribute what Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould actually presented. Frequently. ID'iot creationers will claim that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Eldredge and Gould to explain gaps in the fossil record. The fact is, the theory was proposed to explain the (relative) rarity of transitional fossils, not their total absence. They sought to explain why speciation happens relatively quickly in some cases, more gradually in other cases, and seemingly not at all during some time periods for some species.

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
You need to calm down and get over you hate and emotionalism towards creationists and ID people (who aren't ID'iot creationers). No one takes you seriously anymore because you can't distinguish the different groups. This is present in all of your posts whether I bring up an ID argument or a creation science one. Usually, I present creationist arguments and I have explained it to you several times, but you continue to persist in your ramblings and false beliefs, so no need to reply to most of the things you bring up.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
44,976
Reaction score
5,670
Points
1,870
That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."
Which is not correct. Evolution follows a clear progression. Single cell. Multi cell. Vertebrates. Tetrapods. Nothing out of order. That's neither random nor chaotic. We aren't finding rabbit fossils in the Jurassic period, nor will we ever. We don't have a "random chance" of finding a bird fossil in a 2 billion year old rock. The chance is zero.
That isn’t what I meant by random. The mutations are random and sometimes chaotic. Whether they lead to a creature better suited to its environment or to a creature that can’t survive even one day depends on the environment. That part isn’t random.
You're more right than what Fort Fun Indiana is making up.

Yes, I've read of it. It's called the chaos theory and it's all due to chance (which you bring in as mutations).

"Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another

IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: “Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter.” Darwin never did.

To this day Lyell’s question has never received an adequate answer. I believe that is because there isn’t one. Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change.

This is a long-running debate. In 1972, for example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould challenged the assumption that evolutionary change was continuous and gradual. Their “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis argued that change happens in short bursts separated by long periods of stability, as distinct from the more continuous change over long periods expected to be the outcome of natural selection and adaptation.

Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book Natural Selection in the Wild). More recently, and controversially, cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson have pointed out philosophical problems with the adaptationist argument (New Scientist, 6 February, p 28).





--

I think it's important to correct creationers who both don't understand and attempt to falsely attribute what Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould actually presented. Frequently. ID'iot creationers will claim that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Eldredge and Gould to explain gaps in the fossil record. The fact is, the theory was proposed to explain the (relative) rarity of transitional fossils, not their total absence. They sought to explain why speciation happens relatively quickly in some cases, more gradually in other cases, and seemingly not at all during some time periods for some species.

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
Its just so odd to watch him cite scientists, then shit on their entire, life's work in the next breath. This is what "backwards think" does to the human brain. All integrity and honesty go right out the window, in a backwards think. In a backwards think, the conclusion is chosen first. Then all new information is argued to support the preconception. What does not matter to these frauds is that the arguments made regarding the new information actually be consistent with one another; they must only be consistent with the preconception.

So, the result is that a fraud like Bond will cite the authority and ideas of Gould in one breath, then state he is a liar and a fraud in the next breath. No amount of lying, fallacy, or self-contradiction is too much for a person like Bond, especially when this exercise has been undertaken out of survival instinct to protect one's entire identity and belief set. In Bond's case, he defines himself by his magical, iron age religious beliefs.

The easy way, intellectually, to dismiss the backwards think exercise is to point out the contradictions, falsehoods, and fallacies that arise from the backwards think exercise. However, that only compels those NOT engaged in the backwards think because, as previously stated, the fraud engaging it it does not care that these things arise. So, to the fraud, you haven't even dinged their "arguments". So one funny result is that the fraud will "declare victory" in any and every such exchange. You will see Bond do this in this thread, probably more than once.
 
Last edited:

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,429
Reaction score
2,058
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
I think it's important to correct creationers who both don't understand and attempt to falsely attribute what Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould actually presented. Frequently. ID'iot creationers will claim that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Eldredge and Gould to explain gaps in the fossil record. The fact is, the theory was proposed to explain the (relative) rarity of transitional fossils, not their total absence. They sought to explain why speciation happens relatively quickly in some cases, more gradually in other cases, and seemingly not at all during some time periods for some species.

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
There's also the process of fossilization that needs to be considered ... that's by no means an automatic ... in fact, one could argue it's rare to occur ... only in very special circumstances will fossils form in the first place, and the species has to be fossilizable ... not all species can form fossils ...

Out of millions of species, only a very few can be shown to go through tiny steps of change through time ... BUT ... these few do fully demonstrate the ToE ... science is very nitpicky about duplication, but once we have duplication in hand, science says it's a real thing ...

But that's science ... Genesis is philosophy ... but definition the creation is unique, and science cannot examine unique events ...
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,213
Reaction score
4,396
Points
1,130
I think it's important to correct creationers who both don't understand and attempt to falsely attribute what Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould actually presented. Frequently. ID'iot creationers will claim that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Eldredge and Gould to explain gaps in the fossil record. The fact is, the theory was proposed to explain the (relative) rarity of transitional fossils, not their total absence. They sought to explain why speciation happens relatively quickly in some cases, more gradually in other cases, and seemingly not at all during some time periods for some species.

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
You need to calm down and get over you hate and emotionalism towards creationists and ID people (who aren't ID'iot creationers). No one takes you seriously anymore because you can't distinguish the different groups. This is present in all of your posts whether I bring up an ID argument or a creation science one. Usually, I present creationist arguments and I have explained it to you several times, but you continue to persist in your ramblings and false beliefs, so no need to reply to most of the things you bring up.
I can see you're angry and lashing out like a petulant child. You obviously don't like being held to account for false claims about biological evolution and for falsely attributing what scientists such as Gould and Eldredge actually presented.

If you have a defendable argument to present, then do so. If you choose not to respond to what I wrote that is fine, but there's no need for emotional outbursts when religious claims are countered by science data.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,213
Reaction score
4,396
Points
1,130
I think it's important to correct creationers who both don't understand and attempt to falsely attribute what Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould actually presented. Frequently. ID'iot creationers will claim that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Eldredge and Gould to explain gaps in the fossil record. The fact is, the theory was proposed to explain the (relative) rarity of transitional fossils, not their total absence. They sought to explain why speciation happens relatively quickly in some cases, more gradually in other cases, and seemingly not at all during some time periods for some species.

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
There's also the process of fossilization that needs to be considered ... that's by no means an automatic ... in fact, one could argue it's rare to occur ... only in very special circumstances will fossils form in the first place, and the species has to be fossilizable ... not all species can form fossils ...

Out of millions of species, only a very few can be shown to go through tiny steps of change through time ... BUT ... these few do fully demonstrate the ToE ... science is very nitpicky about duplication, but once we have duplication in hand, science says it's a real thing ...

But that's science ... Genesis is philosophy ... but definition the creation is unique, and science cannot examine unique events ...
I think the above is well stated and I agree. In addition to the unique description of Genesis, I would also add supernatural and the limitation of science with regard to examination of supernatural events.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,429
Reaction score
2,058
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
A word about chaos ... that's a mathematical structure with some usefulness in macroscopic systems ... looking at atoms and molecules though, things are pretty much set in stone, it's more useful to analysis the individual bonding energies and motion ... casting this microscopically as chaos has no predictive value, so it's pointless ...

There's a non-zero probability that two methane molecules will collide at just the right momentums that they form a chemical bond and become ethane ... ethane is stable, over time ethane builds up in the environment ... for more collisions, more molecules, bigger and bigger ... [shrugs shoulders] ... where common molecules are common, it's common for life to erupt ... not chaos, it's order, driven by solar energy ...
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,375
Reaction score
1,055
Points
170
Its just so odd to watch him cite scientists, then shit on their entire, life's work in the next breath. This is what "backwards think" does to the human brain. All integrity and honesty go right out the window, in a backwards think. In a backwards think, the conclusion is chosen first. Then all new information is argued to support the preconception. What does not matter to these frauds is that the arguments made regarding the new information actually be consistent with one another; they must only be consistent with the preconception.
The truth is the existence of life is an elementary fact, but it cannot be explained by evolutionists. It cannot be explained with evolutionary thinking and abiogenesis. One has to have the presence of life first before you can refer to your scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould and I'm fine with that. That said, the creation scientists and I do not have to agree with him that some mutation was a random and fortuitous occurrence for a single cell to pop into existence. No one can show something did or didn't happen in a billion years, but that's what the assumption is for scientific atheism.

I was the one who pointed out your backward evolutionary thinking first. Here is the explanation:

evolutionary_rationalism.jpg


It is based on rationalism. In my example, your scientists observed a flower and saw that it had design and so had to have an explanation of why that came to be. This is how you came up with the planets had to become spherical because you've already seen photos of them. Your rationalism makes you make up evolution to explain for the design of the flower or how it came to be pink. Thus, we get all the complex explanations and new terminology to make it sound like its actual knowledge or truth. What is this process of thinking called? It's called:

evolutionary_rationalism_b.jpg


Circular thinking. Or a logical fallacy. This is one of the most devious tricks upon the mind where one convinces themselves they are right.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,375
Reaction score
1,055
Points
170
Genesis is philosophy ... but definition the creation is unique, and science cannot examine unique events ...
No, what is written in Genesis is creation science. It can be backed up by the scientific method. We know that God created adult animals first such as birds and sea creatures for Earth and Earth only.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
44,976
Reaction score
5,670
Points
1,870
The truth is the existence of life is an elementary fact, but it cannot be explained by evolutionists.
And the fact that life once did not exist is another elementary fact. Scientists can explain it. Abiogenesis occurred due to selection by physical forces working on a bunch of chemicals. Explained. No need for any Gods. But feel free to say this was God's plan, if you like. That doesn't intrude on anything.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top