Spirituality
15 Sep 05
15 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettHa! You don't need me to point out the logical fallacy in your statement. Maybe a little more reason and a little less tongue in cheek would be in order before I equate you as the dj2 of the far left. And to add insult to injury you got a rec for proving nothing.
You wouldn't be sitting here asking the question if it wasn't possible.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseHmmm...I didn't think creationists were capable of understanding what logical fallacies were. They certainly don't seem to be able to grasp the one about circular reasoning.
Ha! You don't need me to point out the logical fallacy in your statement. Maybe a little more reason and a little less tongue in cheek would be in order before I equate you as the dj2 of the far left. And to add injury to insult you got a rec for proving nothing.
I typically find that there is an inverse relation between post length and the number of recs it receives. The forums tend to bear out the maxim that brevity is the soul of wit. Lengthy, well thought out posts tend to be overlooked in the rec department.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by rwingettHmmm...I didn't think creationists were capable of understanding what logical fallacies were. They certainly don't seem to be able to grasp the one about circular reasoning.
Hmmm...I didn't think creationists were capable of understanding what logical fallacies were. They certainly don't seem to be able to grasp the one about circular reasoning.
I typically find that there is an inverse relation between post length and the number of recs it receives. The forums tend to bear out the maxim that brevity is the soul of wit. Lengthy, well thought out posts tend to be overlooked in the rec department.
Lets for the sake of this thread, take it from a purely evolutionary perspective.
I typically find that there is an inverse relation between post length and the number of recs it receives.
Dr@. Life really is ironic.
15 Sep 05
<halitose sits in corner licking his wounds>
Can we agree on the hypothetical state of this first living cell. Most evolutionists agree that the very first cell of life was a simple bacterium. Current bacteria DNA has about 128 million base pairs. However, scientists claim to have found ancient fossils of bacteria which they claim to only have 500,000 base pairs. Highly unlikely, as mineralisation which forms the fossil would destroy the DNA, but I'll concede. Some evolutionists specualate further that it may have been possible for the earliest bacterium to have survived with as little as 100,000 base pairs of DNA.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseAre you incapable of understanding that evolution has nothing to say about how life originated. It is concerned solely with how life evolved after it had originated. There are many adherants of evolution who maintain a divine spark was necessary to get the first living organism started, but once started evolution did its work. This is more of a deistic conception of god - one who created the world but then took no active part in it thereafter.
<halitose sits in corner licking his wounds>
Can we agree on the hypothetical state of this first living cell. Most evolutionists agree that the very first cell of life was a simple bacterium. Current bacteria DNA has about 128 million base pairs. However, scientists claim to have found ancient fossils of bacteria which they claim to only have 500,000 ba ...[text shortened]... ossible for the earliest bacterium to have survived with as little as 100,000 base pairs of DNA.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by rwingettAre you incapable of understanding that evolution has nothing to say about how life originated.
Are you incapable of understanding that evolution has nothing to say about how life originated. It is concerned solely with how life evolved after it had originated. There are many adherants of evolution who maintain a divine spark was necessary to get the first living organism started, but once started evolution did its work. This is more of a deistic conception of god - one who created the world but then took no active part in it thereafter.
Not at all. But that doesn't stop evolutionists from theorising how it could have happened.
There are many adherants of evolution who maintain a divine spark was necessary to get the first living organism started, but once started evolution did its work. This is more of a deistic conception of god - one who created the world but then took no active part in it thereafter.
Right, but I'm working my angle from a non-deistic perspective; random chance so to say.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by rwingettIt doesn't have to be a deistic conception of god either. Many (I guess most, although I don't have numbers) Christians adhere to evolution, but they are certainly not deists.
Are you incapable of understanding that evolution has nothing to say about how life originated. It is concerned solely with how life evolved after it had originated. There are many adherants of evolution who maintain a divine spark was necessary to get the first living organism started, but once started evolution did its work. This is more of a deistic conception of god - one who created the world but then took no active part in it thereafter.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by NordlysSure. But as I said above (maybe not so clearly), I want to investigate if it is statistically possible to happen by random chance.
It doesn't have to be a deistic conception of god either. Many (I guess most, although I don't have numbers) Christians adhere to evolution, but they are certainly not deists.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseWhat exactly do you mean by "statistically possible"? That doesn't make any sense to me. I seem to remember this came up in another thread, but I don't remember where it was.
Sure. But as I said above (maybe not so clearly), I want to investigate if it is statistically possible to happen by random chance.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by NordlysTake all the requirement for a fuctioning single-celled organism, take random chance and add the two together and see if it is statistically possible. DNA is a good start as it is the molecule which regulates the functionality of a cell.
What exactly do you mean by "statistically possible"? That doesn't make any sense to me. I seem to remember this came up in another thread, but I don't remember where it was.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI repeat: What exactly do you mean by "statistically possible"?
Take all the requirement for a fuctioning single-celled organism, take random chance and add the two together and see if it is statistically possible. DNA is a good start as it is the molecule which regulates the functionality of a cell.