Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
Is it acceptable to just ignore J C's green text?
All they seems to be are quotes from evolutionists. randomly dotted with red with his own meaning strapped on.0 -
No, the case is I think you misrepresent JC's use of "spontaneous evolution" and "frogs to princes".I don't get you wolfsbane. Unlike J C, you seem to be a genuine Creationists with genuine (albeit misplaced) concerns. But then you turn around and commend J C for what he says in his posts. It's very inconsistent.
For example, J C has repeatedly referred to "spontaneous evolution" despite the fact that we have explained that evolution is anything but spontaneous, and that such spontaneity is too improbable and therefore cannot be part of the evolutionary process. Do you condone such repetition; such stifling of the conversation, with the same regurgitated vapid rhetoric? Do you encourage the use of phrases like "spontaneous evolution" or "frogs to princes", knowing that they are not related to Darwinian evolutionary biology?
Earlier, you seemed to convey yourself as someone who admits they do not know the science, and admits that evolutionary biology is accepted by the scientific community, but didn't trust the scientific community due to their methodological materialism. If you commend J C's disingenuous remarks, then you are not even that far, and instead simply want evolution to be wrong regardless of the validity of the arguments for or against it.
You do believe that life arose from non-life by non-directed process. That chemicals just so combined as to give that result. Spontaneous seems to cover it.
You do believe that the first form of life, the simplest cell, developed over countless generations into today's biosphere, of with man is the self-aware ruler. Frog to prince seems a good poetic description.
_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 21:45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.0 -
... mutations are 'spontaneous' ... and they are the 'driver' of the variety upon which NS supposedly acts ... so Materialistic Evolution is a 'spontaneous' process.The definition of spontaneous is not "non-intelligently directed process". Spontaneous means random and without an external cause. Darwinian evolution is the "non-random" development of life due to the external cause of selective pressures on random mutations. Mutations might be spontaneous in a certain sense, but because they are spontaneous, they must be very very very slight. Significant spontaneity would make evolution as probable as a tornado moving through a junkyard and contructing a jumbo jet.
So evolution is not spontaneous. It is the very opposite. It is the gradual migration of survival strategies into the various niches presented by the natural world.
You are correct that almost any 'spontaneity' would be fatal in complex specified systems such as those found in living organisms ... and you are also correct when you say that "significant spontaneity would make evolution as probable as a tornado moving through a junkyard and contructing a jumbo jet".
... and therefore the massive increase in spontaneous CSI required to 'evolve' Pondkind into Mankind is also as probable as a tornado moving through a junkyard contructing a jumbo jet (i.e. it is an obvious impossibility for any non-intelligently directed system)!!!:D0 -
... come on ... if you don't address the serious issues for Evolutionism raised by the quotes ... then you accept the validity of my conclusions by default...Originally Posted by J C
... waits for the usual smart-assed 'one liners' from the Materialists (and no response from the Theists) as the Evolutionists continue to ignore/deny the key points in the above Evolutionist quotes.
Genghiz Cohen
Is it acceptable to just ignore J C's green text?
All they seems to be are quotes from evolutionists. randomly dotted with red with his own meaning strapped on.
... of course, as there is no real counter argument to my conclusions, challenging them will merely result in defeat ...
... so perhaps it is best to keep your head down and hope that the arguments go away ...
... however, always living your life as 'an Evolutionist on the Run' cannot be very intellectually fulfilling!!!:eek::D0 -
... everybody gets older with age!!!Genghiz Cohen wrote: »Like a fine wine, I get older with age.
... I also get better with age!!!!:eek::):D0 -
Advertisement
-
... of course, as there is no real counter argument to my conclusions, challenging them will merely result in defeat ...
Because there is no argument.
I've taken some time, just for you, and looked over some of those quotes. Guess what I found.
Nothing.
You wasted my time J C, I want it back :pac:0 -
Hi JC, I love your self belief!: "... and I have single-handedly decimated the scientific and theological arguments of over 300 Evolutionists on this thread". The problem is that you believe in a large-scale worldwide myth-following cult which has been found to be wrong on most of its beliefs over the centuries and has altered/apologised/dissimulated etc for centuries. How can you possibly believe any of that fairy story stuff? Please read some of the top biblical scholars and you will realise that 99% of them don't think it has anything to do with an actual 'supernatural' author but has been shown to be the work of many many scribes over many centuries. How can you quote the bible in your posts here and expect anyone to take you seriously? Please read God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens and the God Delusion by Dawkins and you will be cured.
I would have no problem with you following your myth if it was harmless, but it is an extremely dangerous proposition (as is Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc) which tells millions of followers that THEY are saved and the 'rest' (the dross) of humanity are 'sinners', 'damned' and other types of untermench (sumhumans). So I consider you a dangerous person to other humans and someone who is adding to the misery of the species by being terribly deluded as to his rectitude and his feelings of superiority over others (where have we seen that before?). Please wake up to the truth of true humanity and help us to strive towards unity and peace for mankind and not division based on unfounded myths. However I love you as a fellow human and hope for the best for you.0 -
... denial is a terrible thing ... with you, it not only includes denying the substance of the argument ... it extends to denying that an argument even exists.Genghiz Cohen wrote: »Because there is no argument.
I've taken some time, just for you, and looked over some of those quotes. Guess what I found.
Nothing.
Please bear in mind that these quotes/arguments are from an Evolutionist.
... so you have moved from denying Creationist arguments to now denying an Evolutionist's arguments!!!!:eek::):D0 -
Jesus loves you too atmo ... and He is waiting to Save you ... if you will just believe on Him!!!:)Hi JC, I love your self belief!: "... and I have single-handedly decimated the scientific and theological arguments of over 300 Evolutionists on this thread". Problem is you believe in a large-scale worldwide myth following cult which has been found to be wrong on most of its beliefs over the centuries and has altered/apologised/dissimulated etc for centuries. How can you possibly believe any of that fairy story stuff? Please read some of the top biblical scholars and you will realise that 99% of them don't think it has anything to do with an actual 'supernatural' author but has been shown to be the work of many many scribes over many centuries. How can you quote the bible in your posts here and expect anyone to take you seriously? Please read God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens and the God Delusion by Dawkins and you will be cured.
I would have no problem with you following your myth if it was harmless but it is an extremely dangerous proposition (as is Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc) which tells millions of followers that THEY are saved and the 'rest' (the dross) of humanity are 'sinners', 'damned' and other types of untermench (sumhumans). So I consider you a dangerous person to other humans and someone who is adding to the misery of the species by being terribly deluded as to his rectitude and his feelings of superiority over others (where have we seen that before?). Please wake up to the truth of true humanity and help us to strive towards unity and peace for mankind and not division based on unfounded myths. However I love you as a fellow human and hope for the best for you.
I too support unity and peace for all of Mankind ... with the God who Created them!!!!:)
Why do you say I am a 'dangerous person' ... when I only have love for my fellow man?
... and I have no feeings of superiority ... just eternal gratitude to God for saving an undeserving sinner like me!!!
... and there is no 'dross of Humanity' or 'untermench' ... everybody is made in the image and likeness of God!!0 -
Compromise is the sine qua non for all peace and love to take place in All relationships on this planet (between siblings, lovers, neighbours, communities, countries etc..) Can you imagine any relationship in which one party says: "I love you but I can't compromise at all on anything"? This person cannot say: "I love you" in the same sentence as: "I cannot compromise". A great part of love in being willing to compromise.
No religious beliver on this planet will agree to compromise on their beliefs. This is why people in Nigeria have been killing their neighbours of the opposite religion over the last few weeks (and months and years). Same happening daily in India, Middle East, across North Africa, many places in Asia.0 -
Advertisement
-
... Respect is the sine qua non for peace and love in all relationships ...Compromise is the sine qua non for all peace and love to take place in All relationships on this planet (between siblings, lovers, neighbours, communities, countries etc..) Can you imagine any relationship in which one party says: "I love you but I can't compromise at all on anything"? This person cannot say: "I love you" in the same sentence as: "I cannot compromise". A great part of love in being willing to compromise.
No religious beliver on this planet will agree to compromise on their beliefs. This is why people in Nigeria have been killing their neighbours of the opposite religion over the last few weeks (and months and years). Same happening daily in India, Middle East, across North Africa, many places in Asia.
... there is no need for compromise when people respect the right of others to be different.
Just because you believe in Evolution and I believe in Creation doesn't mean we can't be good friends and work colleagues.
Few will readily compromise on their core beliefs ... nor should they have to.
Equally, every person should be free to articulate their beliefs ... to other people ... who then should have the right to freely accept, modify or reject these beliefs!!!:)0 -
Hi JC, I have no doubt that you personally do not intend to harm others but spreading a myth which tells children (and adults) that they are somehow damaged persons ('sinners') is not a human friendly passtime. You say you have " eternal gratitude to God for saving an undeserving sinner like me!!!" Who told you such a terrible lie? You are a perfect human being!! If god really made you a 'sinner' then he is not such a good being is he? If god wants to be praised then he is a bit of a megalomaniac. If he doesn't then why waste your precious time and money building copies of ancient Babylonian temples and having mock blood sacrifices on an altar each Sunday. If you go to services in a church just listen to what is actually being said - it is truly frightening stuff!! I respect you more than your priests and ancient books do.0
-
The problem is that you believe in a large-scale worldwide myth-following cult which has been found to be wrong on most of its beliefs over the centuries and has altered/apologised/dissimulated etc for centuries.
Christianity's core foundational faith basis is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Has that been proven not to have happened? If not then we are still OK to believe in that at least, aren't we?How can you possibly believe any of that fairy story stuff? Please read some of the top biblical scholars and you will realise that 99% of them don't think it has anything to do with an actual 'supernatural' author but has been shown to be the work of many many scribes over many centuries.
Quote your sources please and cite them properly, this will lend some credence and support to your arguments.I would have no problem with you following your myth if it was harmless, but it is an extremely dangerous proposition (as is Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc) which tells millions of followers that THEY are saved and the 'rest' (the dross) of humanity are 'sinners', 'damned' and other types of untermench (sumhumans).Please read God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens and the God Delusion by Dawkins and you will be cured.
Now who's adopting the "I know best and everyone else are the dross." kind of attitude? :rolleyes:So I consider you a dangerous person to other humans and someone who is adding to the misery of the species by being terribly deluded as to his rectitude and his feelings of superiority over others (where have we seen that before?).
Sadly it's an all too common trait amongst many atheists.Please wake up to the truth of true humanity and help us to strive towards unity and peace for mankind and not division based on unfounded myths.
So you want us to side with your view of the world in order to have peace with you? Reminds me of the ultimatums that were visited upon some of the early Christians. What they had to do in order to stay in good with the Roman Empire, i.e. renounce Christ and bow to Caesar or burn. Well that Empire is long since crumbled and decayed and Christianity is still alive and thriving all over the world, so thanks but no thanks.0 -
No, the case is I think you misrepresent JC's use of "spontaneous evolution" and "frogs to princes".
You do believe that life arose from non-life by non-directed process. That chemicals just so combined as to give that result. Spontaneous seems to cover it.
Wolfsbane, many people might hold to that view, in fact I'd say most biologists and scientists in the world as a whole, but that view is NOT evolution. That is Abiogenesis which has nowhere even close to a percentage of the evidence behind it that evolution has behind it.
Evolution is not abiogenesis, evolution does not require abiogenesis.
Evolution is about how life has changed over time. Nothing more.
God could very well have puffed life into existence. It would make no difference whatsoever to the theory of evolution.
This is one of the most annoying and most ignorant of creationist ramblings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesiswikipedia wrote:In the natural sciences, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen.0 -
... could I point out that I was using the term 'Spontaneous Evolution' in the context of 'the Spontaneous Evolution of Frogs into Princes'!!!Wolfsbane, many people might hold to that view, in fact I'd say most biologists and scientists in the world as a whole, but that view is NOT evolution. That is Abiogenesis which has nowhere even close to a percentage of the evidence behind it that evolution has behind it.
Evolution is not abiogenesis, evolution does not require abiogenesis.
Evolution is about how life has changed over time. Nothing more.
God could very well have puffed life into existence. It would make no difference whatsoever to the theory of evolution.
This is one of the most annoying and most ignorant of creationist ramblings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
i.e. the spontaneous (non-intelligently directed) production of the CSI differences between our supposed common amphibian ancestor and Mankind.
It is a nonesense to expect this CSI to arise spontaneously via non-intelligently directed means ... and introducing the 'Abiogenesis' red herring to 'muddy the waters' (no pun intended) doesn't do anything for your argument ... it only highlights yet another even more intractible problem for a Materialistic explanation of how we got here!!!:)
Could I also point out that Creation Science fully accepts that populations of living organisms can 'change over time' but this change is limited to the CSI present in each Created Kind when it was Created ...
... so different varieties of frogs and princes can arise over time using Frog and Human CSI diversity respectively ... but Frogs can never 'change into princes' because they simply don't possess the CSI necessary to do so.
... Materialisitic accounts of 'Frogs changing into Princes' belong in the realm of Hans Christian Anderson ... and whether the supposed cause is a kiss or millions of years of genetic mistakes ... they are both fairytales!!:D0 -
You do believe that life arose from non-life by non-directed process. That chemicals just so combined as to give that result. Spontaneous seems to cover it.
Not at all.
It was no more spontaneous than leaving ice in the sun causes it to "spontaneously" melt. The chemical reactions in life follow standard chemical laws and happen due to heat from the Sun and the Earth.0 -
No, the case is I think you misrepresent JC's use of "spontaneous evolution" and "frogs to princes".
You do believe that life arose from non-life by non-directed process. That chemicals just so combined as to give that result. Spontaneous seems to cover it.
That's just it... We don't believe evolution is a non-directed process. If all there was to evolution was spontaneous mutations then sure. But the guiding process of evolution is survival.You do believe that the first form of life, the simplest cell, developed over countless generations into today's biosphere, of with man is the self-aware ruler. Frog to prince seems a good poetic description.
It is about as poetic as describing genesis as "Magic wizard went poof." It is nonsensical rhetoric and you know it.JC wrote:... mutations are 'spontaneous' ... and they are the 'driver' of the variety upon which NS supposedly acts ... so Materialistic Evolution is a 'spontaneous' process.
They are not the driver. I have no issue with you describing mutations as spontaneous, but when you describe evolution (i.e. The guided development of life) as spontaneous then you are being disingenuous.You are correct that almost any 'spontaneity' would be fatal in complex specified systems such as those found in living organisms ... and you are also correct when you say that "significant spontaneity would make evolution as probable as a tornado moving through a junkyard and contructing a jumbo jet".
... and therefore the massive increase in spontaneous CSI required to 'evolve' Pondkind into Mankind is also as probable as a tornado moving through a junkyard contructing a jumbo jet (i.e. it is an obvious impossibility for any non-intelligently directed system)!!!
You have just changed the subject. Instead of arguing that Darwinian evolution is spontaneous, you are now arguing that gradual, non-spontaneous Darwinian evolution cannot account for complexity. If you want to move on to that topic then you must first concede that the form of evolution accepted by evolutionary biologists is not spontaneous evolution0 -
...ah Wicknight ... have you completely gone and lost it???!!!Not at all.
It was no more spontaneous than leaving ice in the sun causes it to "spontaneously" melt. The chemical reactions in life follow standard chemical laws and happen due to heat from the Sun and the Earth.
... there is much more than chemistry going on here!!!
Living processes may use the laws of chemistry and physics, just like jet planes use the laws of chemistry and physics for propulsion ... but the reason that life and jets do what they do, in the first place, is due to the intelligent design of their control systems.0 -
... as the supposed source of the variety upon which NS supposedly acts is (spontaneous) mutation ... the entire process is therefore spontaneous ... because it relies on the spontaneous component of mutation!!!Originally Posted by JC
... mutations are 'spontaneous' ... and they are the 'driver' of the variety upon which NS supposedly acts ... so Materialistic Evolution is a 'spontaneous' process.
Morbert
They are not the driver. I have no issue with you describing mutations as spontaneous, but when you describe evolution (i.e. The guided development of life) as spontaneous then you are being disingenuous.
The so-called 'guidance' that is supposedly provided by NS is limited to the useful 'variety' made available to it by spontaneous mutation ... and spontaneous mutations are observed to always degrade genetic information!!!
... so the whole thing is a half-truth nonesense.
NS is reasonably good at preserving existing useful CSI ... but it cannot produce useful CSI, in the first place. Only an Intelligent Agent can do this.
1. Darwinian Evolution is Spontaneous as it supposedly relies on a spontaneous fundamental component (Spontaneous Mutation).Originally Posted by JC
You are correct that almost any 'spontaneity' would be fatal in complex specified systems such as those found in living organisms ... and you are also correct when you say that "significant spontaneity would make evolution as probable as a tornado moving through a junkyard and contructing a jumbo jet".
... and therefore the massive increase in spontaneous CSI required to 'evolve' Pondkind into Mankind is also as probable as a tornado moving through a junkyard contructing a jumbo jet (i.e. it is an obvious impossibility for any non-intelligently directed system)!!!
Morbert
You have just changed the subject. Instead of arguing that Darwinian evolution is spontaneous, you are now arguing that gradual, non-spontaneous Darwinian evolution cannot account for complexity. If you want to move on to that topic then you must first concede that the form of evolution accepted by evolutionary biologists is not spontaneous evolution
2. Because it is spontaneous, Darwinian Evolution (whether rapid or gradual) is simply incapable of generating new useful CSI because the useless deleterious combinations of biomolecules vastly outnumber the useful ones.
This thing is quite simple really ... nobody would produce a car using non-intelligently directed processses ... the scrap would simply be too great (even with a post-factum quality selection system that is analagous to NS)!!!
... so why does anybody think that producing a vastly more complex specified living organism can be done spontaneously (even with a selection mechanism to 'guide' it???!!!0 -
Hi atmo ... there is no such thing as a 'perfect' Human Being ... we are all fallen creatures on the way to physical death and spiritual darkness.Hi JC, I have no doubt that you personally do not intend to harm others but spreading a myth which tells children (and adults) that they are somehow damaged persons ('sinners') is not a human friendly passtime. You say you have " eternal gratitude to God for saving an undeserving sinner like me!!!" Who told you such a terrible lie? You are a perfect human being!!
This idea of the 'perfect' Human is actually a very dangerous idea ... and it is actually a version of Satan's lie that 'ye are/will be as God' ... nothing is perfect, since the Fall, other than God Himself.
This 'perfect Human' idea was a prime driver behind the Nazi Holocaust as they sought to achieve a 'perfect' Human Race by eliminating anybody they thought to be 'less than perfect'.
1. God didn't make me a sinner ... my ultimate ancestor, (Adam) made me a sinner ... but God so loves each one of us that whoever believes on Him will be Saved.If god really made you a 'sinner' then he is not such a good being is he? If god wants to be praised then he is a bit of a megalomaniac. If he doesn't then why waste your precious time and money building copies of ancient Babylonian temples and having mock blood sacrifices on an altar each Sunday.
2. God doesn't want to be praised ... He wants to be loved by us. Of course, because I love Him I want to also praise Him.
3. It would not only be a waste of time, but an insult to God, to build pagan temples and make mock blood sacrifices on altars to Him. All Jesus has asked is that we remember Him by re-enacting His Last Supper on Earth by solemnly sharing bread and wine in His name ... and what could be more innocent or noble than that.
What is frightening about sharing bread and wine in communion with your friends while remembering the God who has given you physical life and who will Save you from eternal perdition when you die?If you go to services in a church just listen to what is actually being said - it is truly frightening stuff!! I respect you more than your priests and ancient books do.0 -
Advertisement
-
Your 'top biblical scholars' are on a par with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Scholars with an agenda, not driven by the facts.Hi JC, I love your self belief!: "... and I have single-handedly decimated the scientific and theological arguments of over 300 Evolutionists on this thread". The problem is that you believe in a large-scale worldwide myth-following cult which has been found to be wrong on most of its beliefs over the centuries and has altered/apologised/dissimulated etc for centuries. How can you possibly believe any of that fairy story stuff? Please read some of the top biblical scholars and you will realise that 99% of them don't think it has anything to do with an actual 'supernatural' author but has been shown to be the work of many many scribes over many centuries. How can you quote the bible in your posts here and expect anyone to take you seriously? Please read God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens and the God Delusion by Dawkins and you will be cured.
I would have no problem with you following your myth if it was harmless, but it is an extremely dangerous proposition (as is Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc) which tells millions of followers that THEY are saved and the 'rest' (the dross) of humanity are 'sinners', 'damned' and other types of untermench (sumhumans). So I consider you a dangerous person to other humans and someone who is adding to the misery of the species by being terribly deluded as to his rectitude and his feelings of superiority over others (where have we seen that before?). Please wake up to the truth of true humanity and help us to strive towards unity and peace for mankind and not division based on unfounded myths. However I love you as a fellow human and hope for the best for you.
_________________________________________________________________
Psalm 53:1 The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity;
There is none who does good.0 -
... as the supposed source of the variety upon which NS supposedly acts is (spontaneous) mutation ... the entire process is therefore spontaneous ... because it relies on the spontaneous component of mutation!!!
The so-called 'guidance' that is supposedly provided by NS is limited to the useful 'variety' made available to it by spontaneous mutation ... and spontaneous mutations are observed to always degrade genetic information!!!
... so the whole thing is a half-truth nonesense.
NS is reasonably good at preserving existing useful CSI ... but it cannot produce useful CSI, in the first place. Only an Intelligent Agent can do this.
Again, you are attempting to change the subject. If I follow you onto this new subject you will, at a later date, return to the claim that evolution is spontaneous. So until this claim is sorted we cannot discuss CSI.
Now, you are perfectly correct in saying that NS can only act on existing mutations, and that these mutations are, in a sense, spontaneous. However, the very fact that these mutations are slight means a mutation will not vary much from previous copies. So if a mutation is selected, successive mutations will be similar, and in turn, they will be subject to selection pressure. The result of all this is a sequence of selections that move towards a specific survival strategy. If this selection pressure were absent, then yes, you would get a circus of unguided, random configurations of organic chemicals.
Claiming evolution is spontaneous because a component of it involves the introduction of slight mutations is like claiming the Bible is a Nautical manual because some guy sails a boat in it.1. Darwinian Evolution is Spontaneous as it supposedly relies on a spontaneous fundamental component (Spontaneous Mutation).
2. Because it is spontaneous, Darwinian Evolution (whether rapid or gradual) is simply incapable of generating new useful CSI because the useless deleterious combinations of biomolecules vastly outnumber the useful ones.
This thing is quite simple really ... nobody would produce a car using non-intelligently directed processses ... the scrap would simply be too great (even with a quality control system that is analagous to NS)!!!
... so why does anybody think that producing a vastly more complex specified living organism can be done spontaneously (even with a selection mechanism to 'guide' it???!!!
You are still attempting to change the subject. You are arguing that spontaneous processes cannot built a car, or a jet, or a human eye. I agree. However, the contention is that evolution is not spontaneous, and that natural selection is non-random.
To put it succinctly, evolution is the non-random selection of random genetic mutations. If evolution were spontaneous, then it would be the random selection of random genetic mutations.0 -
JC has corrected my explanation of his meaning - I had known the difference, but spoke of the cuff.Wolfsbane, many people might hold to that view, in fact I'd say most biologists and scientists in the world as a whole, but that view is NOT evolution. That is Abiogenesis which has nowhere even close to a percentage of the evidence behind it that evolution has behind it.
Evolution is not abiogenesis, evolution does not require abiogenesis.
Evolution is about how life has changed over time. Nothing more.
God could very well have puffed life into existence. It would make no difference whatsoever to the theory of evolution.
This is one of the most annoying and most ignorant of creationist ramblings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Anyway, as he also points out, for the materialists among you abiogenesis is as much a 'fact' as evolution. Two sides of your atheist 'reality'.
_________________________________________________________________
Galatians 4:8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.0 -
... could I point out that I was using the term 'Spontaneous Evolution' in the context of 'the Spontaneous Evolution of Frogs into Princes'!!!
Could I point out that I was responding to wolfbanes interpretation of your statement.
Could I also ask why you continue to use childish terms for accepted scientific theory ?i.e. the spontaneous (non-intelligently directed) production of the CSI differences between our supposed common amphibian ancestor and Mankind.
CSI has been disproven countless times. It is not science, it is nonsense.Could I also point out that Creation Science fully accepts that populations of living organisms can 'change over time' but this change is limited to the CSI present in each Created Kind when it was Created ...
CSI is nonsense.0 -
Anyway, as he also points out, for the materialists among you abiogenesis is as much a 'fact' as evolution. Two sides of your atheist 'reality'.
No, it is not.
We don't accept things because we want to, we don't accept whatever 'feels' right to us. We don't accept something because of religious doctrine. We accept the evidence, the facts.
Evolution is a fact and it is a theory.
A fact is hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true —Douglas FutyumaEvolution describes (and through the theory of evolution, endeavors to explain) the changes in successive generations of organisms, due to differences in genes and gene frequencies that occur in populations of living organisms over time. Thus evolution presupposes that life already exists.
Organisms change over successive generations.
All living organisms alive today have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool).
Supported by ;
Evidence from genetics
Evidence from paleontology
Evidence from comparative anatomy
Evidence from geographical distribution
Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance
Evidence from studies of complex iteration
Evidence from observed speciation
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. - Stephen J. Gould
Abiogenesis is a general umbrella term for a number of competing hypothesis' which try to explain the origin of life. None of which have anywhere close to the amount of evidence Evolution has.
I don't accept abiogenesis as fact because it doesn't have enough evidence to support it (yet). I still view it as the best attempt to explain the origin of life that we have today but if new evidence arrived tomorrow that completely debunked it I would have absolutely no problem discarding it.0 -
... I'm not changing the subject ... CSI and NS are both relevant phenomena to the discussion at hand. Anyway, I will stick with the spontaneity question to please you.Again, you are attempting to change the subject. If I follow you onto this new subject you will, at a later date, return to the claim that evolution is spontaneous. So until this claim is sorted we cannot discuss CSI.
... according to Evolutionists, the genetic variety 'raw material' upon which NS acts is provided by mutations, that are spontaneously generated ... so this makes the whole process spontaneous.Now, you are perfectly correct in saying that NS can only act on existing mutations, and that these mutations are, in a sense, spontaneous. However, the very fact that these mutations are slight means a mutation will not vary much from previous copies. So if a mutation is selected, successive mutations will be similar, and in turn, they will be subject to selection pressure. The result of all this is a sequence of selections that move towards a specific survival strategy. If this selection pressure were absent, then yes, you would get a circus of unguided, random configurations of organic chemicals.
Because the 'useless combinatorial space' is effectively infinite and the useful 'combinatorial space' is very limited, selecting after the spontaneous production of different combinations of nucleic acid is destined to failure. Its akin to a factory making random adjustments to individual parts and then using a quality control/selection system on the finished product. Such a production system would result in every machine being disgarded as non-functional ... and it also would never result in a jumbo jet being 'evolved' from a wheelbarrow through a series of randomly generated steps even in a billion billion billion years.
... the very basis of evolution is the supposed action of NS on spontaneous mutations. Spontaneous Mutations aren't some side issue as you are attempting to suggest ... they play the central role in supposedly providing the variety upon which NS acts to produce 'evolution'.Claiming evolution is spontaneous because a component of it involves the introduction of slight mutations is like claiming the Bible is a Nautical manual because some guy sails a boat in it.
It is analagous to saying that the Bible is the Word of God because God inspired and directed its writing.
... the problem is that the random component (mutation) has no chance of producing useful genetic combinations ... because the useless combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... and the appliance of intelligent choice/design is required to overcome this problem.You are still attempting to change the subject. You are arguing that spontaneous processes cannot built a car, or a jet, or a human eye. I agree. However, the contention is that evolution is not spontaneous, and that natural selection is non-random.
To put it succinctly, evolution is the non-random selection of random genetic mutations. If evolution were spontaneous, then it would be the random selection of random genetic mutations.
NS can 'guide' the process once good 'raw material' in the form of useful CSI / genetic diversity is present ... but the problem for evolution is that useful CSI / genetic diversity can only realistically be expected to be produced using intelligently directed oversight.:)
Ironically, evolution does work by selecting within the large quantities of CSI / genetic diversity infusued into Created Kinds at Creation ...
... however, in and of itself, it is incapable of lifting itself up by its own bootstraps to produce new useful CSI.
The mistake that Evolutionists are making is that Evolution works within a Creation framework to preserve useful traits and adapt populations to their environment using pre-existing (Created) genetic diversity ... but it fails miserably to generate any useful CSI itself ... and it therefore doesn't provide any reason to believe that life evolved via non-intelligently directed processes.
The fact that Evolution 'works' (when you have vast quantities of intelligently created CSI) cannot be extrapolated to conclude that 'evolution' is responsible for the CSI, in the first place.0 -
...ah Wicknight ... have you completely gone and lost it???!!!
... there is much more than chemistry going on here!!!
Living processes may use the laws of chemistry and physics, just like jet planes use the laws of chemistry and physics for propulsion ... but the reason that life and jets do what they do, in the first place, is due to the intelligent design of their control systems.
Instant creation is spontaneous. I've no issue with you calling your theory spontaneous creation.
But calling evolution "spontaneous" is just you once again misrepresenting what the theory says because it scares you so much and you would rather pretend it said something it doesn't so you don't have to face the truth of the fact of evolution.
Evolution is no more spontaneous than ice melting.0 -
... according to Evolutionists, the genetic variety 'raw material' upon which NS acts is provided by mutations, that are spontaneously generated ... so this makes the whole process spontaneous.
Because the 'useless combinatorial space' is effectively infinite and the useful 'combinatorial space' is very limited, selecting after the spontaneous production of different combinations of nucleic acid is destined to failure. Its akin to a factory making random adjustments to individual parts and then using a quality control/selection system on the finished product. Such a production system would result in every machine being disgarded as non-functional ... and it also would never result in a jumbo jet being 'evolved' from a wheelbarrow through a series of randomly generated steps even in a billion years.
You are claiming the non-random quality control is not capable of leading the development of a working finished progress. I disagree (when organic life is considered) however, the salient point to our discussion at hand is that quality control is non-random. So again, you are not claiming that evolution is spontaneous, but rather that the guided, selecting forces of evolution are insufficient.
So the real argument is whether this non-random, gradual process is sufficient. By calling evolution spontaneous, you claiming the process is sudden and random, without any rules. This stifles conversation and misrepresents evolution entirely.... the very basis of evolution is the supposed action of NS on spontaneous mutations. Spontaneous Mutations aren't some side issue as you are attempting to suggest ... they play the central role in supposedly providing the variety upon which NS acts to produce 'evolution'.
It is analagous to saying that the Bible is the Word of God because God inspired and directed its writing.
They play an essential role, but not the central role. Both mutations and the selection of mutations are essential to evolution. Without one you can't have the other. So by calling evolution spontaneous, you are implying only one aspect is important.
My current research involves the "breeding" of configurations in quantum wavefunctions. The creation of these configurations process is random, but the selection of configurations is not, resulting in wavefunctions that accurately describe electronic structures. You wouldn't call this spontaneous, so why call evolution spontaneous?<stuff on CSI>
I would be happy to move on to this, but first you must accept that the mechanism proposed by evolutionary biologists is not random, but rather gradual and selective. If you don't then we'd just be talking past eachother.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Yes that is exactly my point. I'm showing you that I am not afraid of whatever evidence happens to present itself. The big bang theory fits in very nicely with my Biblical belief, so if evidence where to come along which refutes that then you can't say that my openness to it was found wanting. I want to know the actual facts no matter what. I don't know how it all fits together but I'm not going to shut my eyes to current scientific findings just because it goes against my own beliefs. I just find it strange that the scientific establishment employs just such a head in the stand position when anyone dares to challenge their closely protected paradigms. Those paradigms should be put out there to be shot down, if their really true then they will stand up to any scrutiny, and if they're not then who wants to hold onto them anyway?
Don't forget that the Big Bang was invented by a Catholic priest. Not sure if he was under instruction from the Vatican at the time to do so - I doubt it - but it is amusing to see so many who argue against creation and the existence of God standing on the shoulders of Catholic giants in pursuit of their claims.
Also the Big Bang theory relies heavily on strange phenomenon such as Dark matter, Dark energy and Dark flow - things that like God cannot be proven to exist.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement