1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
They haven't "yet" and they never will since the origin of life is not an evolutionary process. I think your confusion between an explanation for the origin of life and an explanation of the diversity thereof is a symptom of a poor understanding of what the theory of evolution is and what we know about life's origins. Have you considered reading a bit about these topics?
They haven't "yet" and they never will since the origin of life is not an evolutionary process.
Even I leave room for the possibility that someone might solve the origin problem relating it to Evolution. Where's your confidence in Science ? I thought you believed it will always eventually explain this.
How do you know it will never be explained by the Evolutionist ?
I think your confusion between an explanation for the origin of life and an explanation of the diversity thereof is a symptom of a poor understanding of what the theory of evolution is and what we know about life's origins. Have you considered reading a bit about these topics?
Yes. I could always learn more.
In the mean time if you think an undirected, unguided, purposeless, goalless process is responsible for the total biosphere, go head and believe that. And I think you are trying to sneak the word "random" out of the whole evaluation of the process.
Even if the process is near accurately described the bottom line result convinces me of intelligent guidance in there somewhere.
The example I referred to was one paragraph on one page from a discussion of eight paragraphs over three pages. And I don't blame some people for finding it hard to follow. I do myself. But referring back to the things I did not quote in his rather dense analysis helps me.
If you are asking if I can break it down as well as the author, I concede I cannot.
But I trust it is not nonsensical. It may have its points of argumentation.
Originally posted by sonshipI take it you are referring to me. If I go and look it up and read the three pages and explain in full why it is nonsense, will you discuss it, or will you bow out without ever admitting it as you did with the YouTube video that in part triggered this thread (which you are yet to admit contains figures you have no explanation for whatsoever but which you accept without ryme or reason because you like the conclusion).
The example I referred to was one paragraph on one page from a discussion of eight paragraphs over three pages. And I don't blame some people for finding it hard to follow. I do myself. But referring back to the things I did not quote in his rather dense analysis helps me.
I fully expect you to decline this offer and instead start spamming the thread with more nonsense.
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadDescribe then the scientific experiment according to the scientific method that you could design to prove that scientific method leads to truth.
The beauty of science it is isn't dependent on belief. If it requires belief then pseudoscience is the correct label.
You believe that the scientific method leads you to truth.
Tell me again - A process without a goal produced a thinking brain of a human from some original first common ancestor organism.
Its not worth it. Its not worth whatever comfort Atheism gives you, to believe that I would say. Its blatant self deception.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
I take it you are referring to me. If I go and look it up and read the three pages and explain in full why it is nonsense, will you discuss it, or will you bow out without ever admitting it as you did with the YouTube video that in part triggered this thread (which you are yet to admit contains figures you have no explanation for whatsoever but which you ...[text shortened]... fully expect you to decline this offer and instead start spamming the thread with more nonsense.
If I go and look it up and read the three pages and explain in full why it is nonsense, will you discuss it, or will you bow out without ever admitting it as you did with the YouTube video that in part triggered this thread (which you are yet to admit contains figures you have no explanation for whatsoever but which you accept without ryme or reason because you like the conclusion).
I may discuss it.
This is the Spirituality Forum. And I make a similar challenge to you. Get out a Bible. Put it on your desk so you can open to it as I request. And we can also discuss it.
You have been here for years and correspondingly I consider it pitiful when you think you know something about what the Bible teaches or what the Christian faith is.
I expect you to decline.
I also expect you to decline going to the Science Forum and making a positive case showing the evidence leans to life occurring with no intelligence involved.
I expect you to decline this too. But you could surprise us and not fall back on saying everyone at the Science Forum, of course, agrees with your views.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't spam. Why lie about it. I post sparingly some things you despise.
I take it you are referring to me. If I go and look it up and read the three pages and explain in full why it is nonsense, will you discuss it, or will you bow out without ever admitting it as you did with the YouTube video that in part triggered this thread (which you are yet to admit contains figures you have no explanation for whatsoever but which you ...[text shortened]... fully expect you to decline this offer and instead start spamming the thread with more nonsense.
I don't count an occasional youtube or a quotation as spamming.
You're reduce to trying to push emotional ad hom buttons against posters.
Nothing to very little about biological life indicates a goalless process turned it out.
If I am wrong and it is all hard Science, then go to the Science Forum and positively make your case in the affirmative.
Don't just tell me there is no need to do that because everyone there is a carbon copy of your science opinions.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Assertion: Anyone who claims to have worked out an explicit probability for life occurring 'at random' or what they really mean 'without the aid of God', is talking nonsense.
Assertion: Anyone claiming probably life arose accidentally over a long period of time by the R word, is talking nonsense.
And anyone saying so and also trying to sneak the word "random" out the back door so as if it has nothing to do with Evolution, is talking nonsense.
Originally posted by sonshipThe real reason you conflate evolution with life origin is because of your hatred of the idea that life could have started without the need for a deity.Why do you keep insisting 'evolutionists' are even working on life origins?
I am quite well familiar with the concept that many Evolutionists do not work on origin of life issue. IMO they were smart to distance themselves from that thorny problem (Thorny to the Evolutionists).
The challenge of this thread's OP does not have to involv ...[text shortened]... y Scheoder discusses pertains to POST origin of all life situation after the Cambrian explosion.
It is your way of attacking the whole concept of life coming from many many many reactions from natural sources, trillions and quadrillions of trillions of little combinations going on simultaneously which you can't get through your head as what was going on 3 billion years ago on Earth. Then again you diss the idea of Earth being here more than 6000 years ago also.
You want to put down evolution studies by trying unsuccessfully BTW, to force evolution to have to explain life origins.
You seem to forget science is only a few hundred years old. How long has mankind been around? For you, a few thousand years, for us, millions.
Either way, what is the past three hundred years to the full lifespan of humans?
Very small percentage of time, either with your 6K reasoning or our 5Mil reasoning, so you are dissing a science that is still in first grade. You are like a Phd in physics dissing a 7 year old for not understanding calculus.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am argument that we are all ignorant and therefore cannot make claims about things we are ignorant about.
I am argument that we are all ignorant and therefore cannot make claims about things we are ignorant about. I am calling you ignorant because you are, and pointing out that because of that you cannot make claims about things you are ignorant about.
Ok if you are ignorant about a matter how would you be able to judge someone else's statements about the matter as being true or not if you are viewing the matter from a position of ignorance?
Originally posted by twhiteheadUnfortunately the way a scientist would interpret scientific evidence is based upon their presuppositions. Especially when it comes to the matter of the origin of life. Or are you saying all theistic scientists are dishonest?
The beauty of science it is isn't dependent on belief. If it requires belief then pseudoscience is the correct label.
Originally posted by sonshipYou are confused. I never said nor suggested that science was the only way to find the truth.
Describe then the scientific experiment according to the scientific method that you could design to prove that scientific method leads to truth.
You believe that the scientific method leads you to truth.
I know that it is the most reliable path to the truth when it comes to investigating the universe. It is not a belief. And no, I do not need a scientific experiment to know that.
Tell me again - A process without a goal produced a thinking brain of a human from some original first common ancestor organism.
A process without a goal produced a thinking brain of a human from some original first common ancestor organism.
How many times do you want me to say it? Will my saying it over and over change your mind? If not, why ask me to repeat it? Its not like my repeating it proves you right or anything.
Its not worth it. Its not worth whatever comfort Atheism gives you, to believe that I would say. Its blatant self deception.
Huh? You've lost me.
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAnd the beauty of science is that when scientists opinions differ, we can use the scientific method to determine who is right.
Unfortunately the way a scientist would interpret scientific evidence is based upon their presuppositions. Especially when it comes to the matter of the origin of life. Or are you saying all theistic scientists are dishonest?
No, not all theistic scientists are dishonest. Some certainly are, just as some atheist scientists are (quite a lot are actually). Luckily the scientific process does not require universal honesty.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkHave you pondered an answer to the question I asked previously: 'would you say, then, that a fruit fly has some segment of its DNA that codes for "fruit fly"-ness, and that this segment is immune to mutations?'
[b]All science can do is find possible evidence in favour of design, and so far, none has been found.
All evidence that is found is be labelled as pseudoscience by those who do not believe in intelligent design.[/b]