@KellyJay saidI just mentioned the word time line and your next post was a screed on nobody knows time line.
You can believe any time line you want, the age does not add to any argument about either Abiogenesis or Evolution. The issues with both of those have to do more with timing and information much more than chance arrangements that could come together and move apart.
@sonhouse saidDo you think you or anyone really knows, or are they just observing the world around them and forming their own thoughts? You have worked with complex things in the past; you should know that if you make a bad assumption, it could lead you to wrong answers. Do you think those who think they know are flawless in what they think and give every variable the proper weight in all of their calculations?
I just mentioned the word time line and your next post was a screed on nobody knows time line.
@KellyJay saidI am not going there.
Do you think you or anyone really knows, or are they just observing the world around them and forming their own thoughts? You have worked with complex things in the past; you should know that if you make a bad assumption, it could lead you to wrong answers. Do you think those who think they know are flawless in what they think and give every variable the proper weight in all of their calculations?
@sonhouse said6 day creation, is a direct tally, and no one endeavoring for such an extent calls it that simply.
The so called Christian/Judaean 7 day creation tale is just that, a man made story with no god in sight, since for one thing the 7 day tale is plagiarised from a 7 day tale over one thousand years older than the Jewish version.
Look to the microscopic order: they're not only replicating as single cells, it's "colony coordination."
@Of-Ants-and-Imps saidWhat does that have to do with evolution and life origins?
6 day creation, is a direct tally, and no one endeavoring for such an extent calls it that simply.
Look to the microscopic order: they're not only replicating as single cells, it's "colony coordination."
@sonhouse saidCan you explain the trillions of cells in a lifeform, all replicating into distinct cells, all working systematically so that what they are work together to form integrated systems, if only through chaos and unguided processes put life together in the first place?
What does that have to do with evolution and life origins?
@KellyJay saidI am opting out of this so called discussion.
Can you explain the trillions of cells in a lifeform, all replicating into distinct cells, all working systematically so that what they are work together to form integrated systems, if only through chaos and unguided processes put life together in the first place?
The human body has trillions of cells over a lifetime, replicating. I have never once heard a good or even a bad explanation of how a non-living material could produce life in cellular form. Even if that were granted, how could it replicate and change in such ways to produce the variety of cells for each body part that remain together in one life, forming the various body parts to perform the required functions? Hence, they must not only change over time but also maintain their cellular integrity as replication occurs.
Yet independently, all the body’s other cells must also change in concert to correctly form the body’s various features so they can work together. Those changes without design occur independently to meet the needs of other cells, forming something else the body requires. Veins and arteries require blood. That ensures the life’s organs can function correctly. If cellular life isn’t designed, why would a cell modify itself over time to help form by acting independently to produce a liver or heart?
Handling a body’s requirements involves meeting goals and needs, which an undirected process cannot achieve in time. People might argue that if this is done in the process, it can happen, but only a finely tuned process can provide a predictable outcome.