Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Spirituality & Religion' started by msilverstein47, Dec 31, 2013.
And you have to rub it in...
Hey, there. That is truth. Coppell was biased against Convey because he is a Yank. Had nothing to do with his level of skill.
Except that there are plausible hypothesis out there each with some level of supporting evidence.
And what you are doing is called making a "God of the Gaps" argument. Just because humans don't know the answer to something you are blindly inserting your god as the answer. It's an argument from ignorance, a non formal fallacy. Until we can document a single reason to believe in a supernatural creator, we can't insert that as an example. Whenever we used to that (as humans) the answer was always later found to be natural.
By the way you are also confusing evolution with abiogenesis, two different topics. Almost everyone of any education accepts evolution, including almost every christian biologist on the planet, because evolution is fact backed up by over 400,000 peer reviewed papers spreading different branches of science.
Lastly, your reasoning is post hoc. You were a christian first and decided to work up this argument. No one comes to believing in their god by this line of (flawed) deductive reasoning.
sorry, buddy, but no soap.
micro evolution, aka speciation, is an easy to understand and verifiable working principle; macro evolution, the development of new genera through natural selection and random mutation, is not verifiable, and, in fact, is not supported by evidence.
to give you a needed heads-up, similarities in genetic information do not point in greater probative value to a common ancestry than to a common creator. and where did the genetic information arise in the first place. i understand that your reductionistic biases require you to call "God of the Gaps" whenever you are painted into a corner, but there's far more to the difficulties in explaining neo-Darwinian evolution than you seem to be aware of.
specifically, there is virtually no "evidence" to establish a theoretical construct to explain the origin of life. beginning with Urey-Miller, all the wildly speculative attempts are flawed. the whole argument is rooted in Hume's contention that there aren't any miraculous/supernatural phenomena. he was wrong, of course, but his error stems simply from a misunderstanding.
the misunderstanding lies in the fact that God created the Laws of Nature (natural law) and anything he does, whether it may appear supernatural or natural is part of his creative prerogative. i get it that Hume didn't understand that idea, but it's a simple one.
There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. That is a creationist invention.
The evidence for "macro" evolution is robust and supported by mountains of evidence. Twin-nested hierarchical patterns of endogenous retroviral markers in the genetic makeup of all primates necessitates a common ancestor.
This becomes abundantly clear when looking at humans and chimpanzees specifically.
Vestigal organs and pseudogenes destroy this claim. I posted this in the other thread but these are christian bilogists who made this page. I hope you will open your mind to the evidence http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-is-there-junk-in-your-genome-part-4
Not knowing the answer to something is not being painted into a corner. And again, this is not evolution it is abiogenesis, a totally different topic.
Show me some documented miracles or supernatural phenomena. And the Urey Miller experiment showed you can get organic material from non organic matter including 22 amino acids.
And there have been more successful abiogenesis experiments since.
Furthermore we are finding more and more clues all the time
The ony thing you've demonstrated so far is ignorance of the data.
I'm no biologist, but the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the length of time, AFAIK.
I guess this is a good thread for this.
And here is the part that anti-evolutionist do not get on how the process works.
What Urey and Miller did is cull out all the organic matter so that the environment in which they "grew" it wouldn't kill it outright. and everybody who has done any reading on the subject knows that the gas mix that they used was not representative of the early earth, so the experiment proved nothing.
you may be able to "grow" organic matter from inorganic matter, but that's worlds away from creating Life, getting a cell, RNA, DNA, all of the stuff that is needed to go from molecules to reproducing entities.
and, tell me all about how sexual reproduction "evolved".
you can't, of course, but you believe it developed thru a non-directed process.
that takes more faith than believing in a Creator.
gotta love Stilton... still going at it in 2018. he's completely wrong and a total fool, but you gotta admire the dedication
i apologize for the total fool remark. stand by the rest
thanks for the correction.
now, in your spare time, tell us how sexual reproduction developed.
Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia
it's not my job to inform you. inform yourself. but you're too dogmatically tied to an idea. no amount of science or debate will make a difference. enjoy your life
You do realise there are species that employ both sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction, right? It’s not as impossible a leap to go from one to another as you think, given both exist in various species.
The thing that jumps out to me about your posts is that because you can’t explain something, all science must be in error. Because you can’t explain how sexual reproduction started, all the fossil and genetic evidence is suddenly null and void. What a ludicrous premise you are using.
The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. You not only want to throw the baby out with the bath water, you also want to burn the house down.
The second thing that jumps out to me is you do not hold the claims of creationism to the same standard you hold actual science. The evidence is so overwhelmingly against the claims of biblical creationists it is absurd to have to engage in these discussions. And it’s not just the fossil evidence, it’s genetics, earth sciences, archaeology, anthropology, zoology, astronomy, etc. Even biblical studies demonstrate you can’t take Genesis as historical or scientific - which of the two contradictory versions of the Flood integrated together in Genesis 6-9 should we accept as the one that supposedly happened about 2400 BCE (contrary to all evidence)? It’s just absurd that so much energy is wasted on such blatant nonsense that humans didn’t evolve from an ape-like ancestor.
I've been busy.
If you read that Wiki entry with any sort of academic acumen you discover that words like "it is thought", "suggests that" and "likely".
How in the world do you actually think that those kinds of explanations prove anything? They don't. They are explanations that make sense if you make certain assumptions, namely that life-form PQR evolved from MNO, over a span of X number of years.
If you are to believe that sexual reproduction "evolved", in higher forms of Life, you must believe that two systems developed in an random process yet fit together in such a manner as to allow species to reproduce. That's akin to believing that the plug that goes into the wall and the outlet happened by a happy accident.
The science isn't there, kids.
Science (unlike religion) recognizes the potential for new knowledge to need incorporation. There is infinitely more evidentiary reason to accept the transitional nature of life forms than there is to believe the religious explaination, that a Golden Cosmic Egg washed up out of the ocean and created life. ,
Well...as all this happened quite some time ago nobody really knows.
Science doesn’t generally prove things, it disproves hypotheses. That is how science operates. For example, it has conclusively disproved many stories and events in the Bible.
I find it extremely ironic that someone who requires absolutely no evidence or “proof” for religious beliefs demands 100% proof for things science says, even though that is not how the scientific method works.
It doesnt take any evidence for the Religious explanation. Everyone knows that the world was created by Coyote Trickster.