2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe is saying abiogenesis has never been observed and there is no way it could have happened. Even evolutionary scientists know that non-life does not bring forth life, but new life comes about through biogenesis. He believes, as I do, that the most likely source of life is from the life of the Creator, who has life within Himself.
And my question is why? What was different? Clearly in the world today, there are many many instances of single cell life forms starting with one cell and quite successfully multiplying to cover vast areas of diverse environments. If it can happen today, what was different in the past that made it so difficult?
[b]Enviroments today, are not what was su dible, but you just don't think the evidence supports them more than a creationist view?
There is also a need for all the correct elements to have been created within the established laws that we have today. So when one considers the complexity of the simplest cell life form that need all these elements and that also requires an information system with instructions for replication of the required proteins to reproduce itself as well as keep it alive, the most logical conclusion is that the life form was designed and created, because information also requires an intelligence source.
We can talk about the possibility of evolution once we get past the cause of life in the beginning problem.
P.S. By the way, nobody has ever been able to refute that God created the heavens and the earth and made life forms on the Earth.
Originally posted by sonhouseHe sees that when the bully is confronted, he high-tails it and runs for cover. The bully turns into a coward when he sees the sword of truth coming at him. Run coward, run! 😏
I see your skin has thickened somewhat from your early appearance on this forum where you called me a bully and such.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't think you even know who you are talking to now. You better take your meds.
He sees that when the bully is confronted, he high-tails it and runs for cover. The bully turns into a coward when he sees the sword of truth coming at him. Run coward, run! 😏
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
Originally posted by sonhouseI do think I was harsh in my reply, but it did seem like a cheap shot to mock and
I see your skin has thickened somewhat from your early appearance on this forum where you called me a bully and such.
run away with a taunt. If he would have just said what he did and left no big deal.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead"How do you know this? Have you studied the subject? Can you tell me what environments were supposed to be like at the time? "
And my question is why? What was different? Clearly in the world today, there are many many instances of single cell life forms starting with one cell and quite successfully multiplying to cover vast areas of diverse environments. If it can happen today, what was different in the past that made it so difficult?
[b]Enviroments today, are not what was su dible, but you just don't think the evidence supports them more than a creationist view?
[/b]You don't need to study it to know the following.
Life produces a lot of things to maintain a balance and without life you do not
have its products and byproducts. So what could have been here could not be the
same thing that could have been here before life. You have to be told that? How
much thought have you put into this? Since our atmosphere now has a lot of
products produced by the life forms for example, what would our atmosphere look
like without years of plant life on the planet? Would the atmosphere back then
protect life in its beginning like it does now?
Starting from nothing living then moving on to life in its infancy requires so much
going right without deviation or you have nothing but dead material. Once life
starts anything disrupts the balance again you’ve not an unlimited amount of life,
it is limited to the area where it began. That small precious area cannot get overly
hot or cold, whatever life is sustaining itself on cannot dry up or it all dies.
Life today is found in all types of areas, but life as we see it today resembles
systems as life basically keeps itself going with a natural balances going on, life in
their niches. The introduction of something destructive like a disease and
everything affected in an area could simply die off. When life was starting out as
evolutionist suggest nothing but good and positive things could have happen or it
could have had dies off. Siince evolutionist believe all of this happened without
direction or protection from anything outside of the nature, I just don't think
it could have happen except in man's imagination.
So if life started in one pond then all the eggs would have in one basket so to
speak. I'll get to your other questions in this post later.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, I want a reasonable explanation for why you think that every environment on earth is a product of life. To my knowledge many environments are not products of life and would have been similar even before life began.
So what could have been here could not be the same thing that could have been here before life. You have to be told that?
How much thought have you put into this?
More than you apparently.
Since our atmosphere now has a lot of products produced by the life forms for example, what would our atmosphere look like without years of plant life on the planet?
Very different. However, it is believed that life began in the sea, not in the atmosphere.
Would the atmosphere back then protect life in its beginning like it does now?
I am not convinced that it wouldn't. What protections does it provide now that it would not have provided then? Can you tell me what the atmosphere would have been like and why you think it would have been unsuitable for life?
Starting from nothing living then moving on to life in its infancy requires so much
going right without deviation or you have nothing but dead material. Once life
starts anything disrupts the balance again you’ve not an unlimited amount of life,
it is limited to the area where it began. That small precious area cannot get overly
hot or cold, whatever life is sustaining itself on cannot dry up or it all dies.
Yet I have pointed out that many life forms today can go from a single cell to covering vast areas. We see it happen. It is not impossible.
Life today is found in all types of areas, but life as we see it today resembles
systems as life basically keeps itself going with a natural balances going on, life in
their niches.
Not true. Not all life is in 'systems' and many life forms are not in any kind of 'natural balance' that somehow sustains it. I think your understanding of biology is severely flawed.
The introduction of something destructive like a disease and everything affected in an area could simply die off.
And sometimes it does - which contracts your earlier 'natural balance' argument. You cant have it both ways.
When life was starting out as evolutionist suggest nothing but good and positive things could have happen or it
could have had dies off.
Not true at all. Evolution is all about bad things happening and only the life forms that make it through surviving. Again, we see this happening all the time around us. We try to kill off bacterial diseases and we throw all the bad things we can think of at it, yet some survives and evolves into antibiotic resistant strains. Of course you try to explain this away as some form of intelligently designed natural adaptation, but ultimately we see it happening and it contradicts your claim here.
Siince evolutionist believe all of this happened without direction or protection from anything outside of the nature, I just don't think
it could have happen except in man's imagination.
Yet we see it happening. No imagination required.
The real problem you have is you don't really know the actual facts. You are basing your whole argument on a gut feeling that it wouldn't work, but you don't actually know enough about the subject to be making that call. You are making wild speculations about something you know next to nothing about and declaring that those who know more than you are believing in fairy tales. What makes you think you are so much smarter than the rest of us? How can you think that you know it all even without the necessary knowledge and someone like me, who knows a lot more about the subject is getting it all wrong? What am I missing that you know and I don't?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]
Yes, I want a reasonable explanation for why you think that every environment on earth is a product of life. To my knowledge many environments are not products of life and would have been similar even before life began.
[b]How much thought have you put into this?
More than you apparently.
Since our atmosphere now has a lot of products produc t the subject is getting it all wrong? What am I missing that you know and I don't?
So why not kill off all the plants on the planet? Lets kill off the trees they add
nothing to life in general? Really, you don't see how life has its place in making
the planet a place where it can live? Not having what life produces means that
something else either full fills that need or that need isn't being met, if its a need
and it isn't being met the system breaks down.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe introduction of something destructive like a disease and everything affected in an area could simply die off.
Yes, I want a reasonable explanation for why you think that every environment on earth is a product of life. To my knowledge many environments are not products of life and would have been similar even before life began.
[b]How much thought have you put into this?
More than you apparently.
Since our atmosphere now has a lot of products produc t the subject is getting it all wrong? What am I missing that you know and I don't?
[/b]And sometimes it does - which contracts your earlier 'natural balance' argument. You cant have it both ways.
AGAIN, talking about the beginning and now....now there is life abundant...at
the beginning anything bad happens its all at risk.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWould all other life die out without plants? No, not at all. I am perfectly well aware that a lot of life requires high oxygen content in the atmosphere, but not all life does.
So why not kill off all the plants on the planet? Lets kill off the trees they add
nothing to life in general? Really, you don't see how life has its place in making
the planet a place where it can live? Not having what life produces means that
something else either full fills that need or that need isn't being met, if its a need
and it isn't being met the system breaks down.
Kelly
Actually, it is a well known fact that land animals and other organisms that require high oxygen content in that atmosphere did not evolve until after the atmosphere was changed by plants.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd AGAIN, there are plenty of examples of single cells managing to colonize vast areas - and for them, anything bad happens (bad enough to cause extinction) and its all at risk. Yet it happens. We see it and document it happening. This contradicts your claims.
AGAIN, talking about the beginning and now....now there is life abundant...at
the beginning anything bad happens its all at risk.
Kelly
In addition, the point you replied to was pointing out that you had earlier claimed that everything is in natural balance, yet now you claim that such balances can, and do, get disrupted. You cant have it both ways, and you have not addressed this point.
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy point was that what was and is are two different things, you cannot even
Would all other life die out without plants? No, not at all. I am perfectly well aware that a lot of life requires high oxygen content in the atmosphere, but not all life does.
Actually, it is a well known fact that land animals and other organisms that require high oxygen content in that atmosphere did not evolve until after the atmosphere was changed by plants.
tell me what was here and what was required in what amounts. You cannot
tell me what was required to keep life going under what conditions and so on.
Life adds to what is here, the requirements and conditions seem to be whatever
you want them to be now to make your theory work. Now if we supposedly
gain some knew knowledge about the distant past, we just change what we
think happened to make the theory work, much like what the American
Supreme Court did with Obama Care they changed the law to make it work,
people change their requirements to meet the data, since that is the case the
theory can never be wrong no matter how many times it is.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadBalance can be distrupted when there is plenty of life to take its place;
And AGAIN, there are plenty of examples of single cells managing to colonize vast areas - and for them, anything bad happens (bad enough to cause extinction) and its all at risk. Yet it happens. We see it and document it happening. This contradicts your claims.
In addition, the point you replied to was pointing out that you had earlier claimed that eve ...[text shortened]... s can, and do, get disrupted. You cant have it both ways, and you have not addressed this point.
however, that is not true when there is very little period. With the amount
of life limited to what was supposed to be here at its very beginning the
need to not have anything bad happen to it would be all important. We see
that now all over the place where there is life bad things happen all the time
and we lose life, if anything were to happen when it just started like that it
would have been the end of it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay"Now if we supposedly gain some knew knowledge about the distant past, we just change what we think happened to make the theory work, ... people change their requirements to meet the data, since that is the case the theory can never be wrong no matter how many times it is. "
My point was that what was and is are two different things, you cannot even
tell me what was here and what was required in what amounts. You cannot
tell me what was required to keep life going under what conditions and so on.
Life adds to what is here, the requirements and conditions seem to be whatever
you want them to be now to make your theory work. ...[text shortened]... ta, since that is the case the
theory can never be wrong no matter how many times it is.
Kelly
This is largely true, to the extent that scientists will resist overturning a major theoretical framework like evolution but will instead tweak it, if that can be done without ignoring reliable data.
But scientific revolutions can and do occur. The Ptolemaic theory of the solar system was a scientific theory, (in spite of the erroneous view that it came from the Bible) because it was based first on the simple fact that the earth seems to be orbited by the sun every day (the Bible simply reported on the Source of that arrangement). The Ptolemaic theory was overthrown when the data and calculations needed to apply it became clearly impossible to support. The Copernican revolution occurred first in science, not between science and religion.
This is laid out at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions#Historical_examples
quote
What is arguably the most famous example of a revolution in scientific thought is the Copernican Revolution. In Ptolemy's school of thought, cycles and epicycles (with some additional concepts) were used for modeling the movements of the planets in a cosmos that had a stationary Earth at its center. As accuracy of celestial observations increased, complexity of the Ptolemaic cyclical and epicyclical mechanisms had to increase to maintain the calculated planetary positions close to the observed positions. Copernicus proposed a cosmology in which the Sun was at the center and the Earth was one of the planets revolving around it. For modeling the planetary motions, Copernicus used the tools he was familiar with, namely the cycles and epicycles of the Ptolemaic toolbox. But Copernicus' model needed more cycles and epicycles than existed in the then-current Ptolemaic model, and due to a lack of accuracy in calculations, Copernicus's model did not appear to provide more accurate predictions than the Ptolemy model. Copernicus' contemporaries rejected his cosmology, and Kuhn asserts that they were quite right to do so: Copernicus' cosmology lacked credibility.
Thomas Kuhn illustrates how a paradigm shift later became possible when Galileo Galilei introduced his new ideas concerning motion. Intuitively, when an object is set in motion, it soon comes to a halt. A well-made cart may travel a long distance before it stops, but unless something keeps pushing it, it will eventually stop moving. Aristotle had argued that this was presumably a fundamental property of nature: for the motion of an object to be sustained, it must continue to be pushed. Given the knowledge available at the time, this represented sensible, reasonable thinking.
Galileo put forward a bold alternative conjecture: suppose, he said, that we always observe objects coming to a halt simply because some friction is always occurring. Galileo had no equipment with which to objectively confirm his conjecture, but he suggested that without any friction to slow down an object in motion, its inherent tendency is to maintain its speed without the application of any additional force.
The Ptolemaic approach of using cycles and epicycles was becoming strained: there seemed to be no end to the mushrooming growth in complexity required to account for the observable phenomena. Johannes Kepler was the first person to abandon the tools of the Ptolemaic paradigm. He started to explore the possibility that the planet Mars might have an elliptical orbit rather than a circular one. Clearly, the angular velocity could not be constant, but it proved very difficult to find the formula describing the rate of change of the planet's angular velocity. After many years of calculations, Kepler arrived at what we now know as the law of equal areas.
Galileo's conjecture was merely that — a conjecture. So was Kepler's cosmology. But each conjecture increased the credibility of the other, and together, they changed the prevailing perceptions of the scientific community. Later, Newton showed that Kepler's three laws could all be derived from a single theory of motion and planetary motion. Newton solidified and unified the paradigm shift that Galileo and Kepler had initiated.
unquote.
If there is any discipline where the "theories" can never be wrong, it is religion.