PDA

View Full Version : The Simplest Cell



David M
07-04-2012, 04:00 PM
While we have a breather in the thread; 'What's The Best Evidence For Evolution', I thought I would look at some information on living cells. Human cells are very complicated and plant cells are compliacated too. So I thought I would do a search for information on the simplest cell. We can all do the same these days and find out what webpages Google has referenced. On the first page of Google I came across two articles. The first article is from Science Week and the second is from a website created by Adolfo Serralta connected with the Bible. I do not know if Adolfo Serralta wrote this article or whether it has been donated, but it illustrates the difficulties which are apparent in the article from Scientific Week.

Evolution is based on all life/living matter originating from the simplest of cells. It is difficult to make a simple cell in the laboratory or for a simple cell to form on its own. Nature shows us many plants and insects etc. that have to produce lots of seeds and eggs for one to survive and grow. It makes sense that there has to be an environment conducive for the chemicals/materials to come together and combine to form lots of partial cells and eventually to produce complete cells for one or two complete cells to begin the process of dividing and multiplying. Everything about the processes involved with cell production is highly complicated as these two articles convey. I present the two articles to provide a balanced presentation; one from a scientific source and the second from a non-scientific source. The Science Week article is from the year 2005 so advances can be expected. If anyone has some later research as evidence to support the case for Evolution, then that is welcomed.


http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050325-1.htm

ScienceWeek

ORIGIN OF LIFE: IN SEARCH OF THE SIMPLEST CELL

The following points are made by Eörs Szathmary (Nature 2005 433:469):

1) In investigating the origin of life and the simplest possible life forms, one needs to enquire about the composition and working of a minimal cell that has some form of metabolism, genetic replication from a template, and boundary (membrane) production.

2) Identifying the necessary and sufficient features of life has a long tradition in theoretical biology. But living systems are products of evolution, and an answer in very general terms, even if possible, is likely to remain purely phenomenological. Going deeper into mechanisms means having to account for the organization of various processes, and such organization has been realized in several different ways by evolution. Eukaryotic cells (such as those from which we are made) are much more complicated than prokaryotes (such as bacteria), and eukaryotes harbor organelles that were once free-living bacteria. A further complication is that multicellular organisms consist of building blocks -- cells -- that are also alive. So aiming for a general model of all kinds of living beings would be fruitless; instead, such models have to be tied to particular levels of biological organization.

3) Basically, there are two approaches to the "minimal cell": the top-down and the bottom-up. The top-down approach aims at simplifying existing small organisms, possibly arriving at a minimal genome. Some research to this end takes Buchnera, a symbiotic bacterium that lives inside aphids, as a rewarding example. This analysis is complemented by an investigation of the duplication and divergence of genes. Remarkably, these approaches converged on the conclusion that genes dealing with RNA biosynthesis are absolutely indispensable in this framework. This may be linked to the idea of life's origins in an "RNA world", although such an inference is far from immediate.

4) Top-down approaches seem to point to a minimum genome size of slightly more than 200 genes. Care should be taken, however, in blindly accepting such a figure. For example, although some gene set A and gene set B may not be common to all bacteria, that does not mean that (A and B) are dispensable. It may well mean that A or B is essential, because the cell has to solve a problem by using either A or B. Only experiments can have the final word on these issues.

5) A top-down approach will not take us quite to the bottom, to the minimal possible cells in chemical terms. All putative cells, however small, will have a genetic code and a means of transcribing and translating that code. Given the complexity of this system, it is difficult to believe, either logically or historically, that the simplest living chemical system could have had these components.

6) The bottom-up approach aims at constructing artificial chemical supersystems that could be considered alive. No such experimental system exists yet; at least one component is always missing. Metabolism seems to be the stepchild in the family: what most researchers in the field used to call metabolism is usually a trivial outcome of the fact that both template replication and membrane growth need some material input. This input is usually simplified to a conversion reaction from precursors to products.

Nature http://www.nature.com/nature

--------------------------------

Related Material:

ORIGIN OF LIFE: ON TRANSITIONS FROM NONLIVING TO LIVING MATTER

The following points are made by S. Rasmussen et al (Science 2004 303:963):

1) All life forms are composed of molecules that are not themselves alive. But in what ways do living and nonliving matter differ? How could a primitive life form arise from a collection of nonliving molecules? The transition from nonliving to living matter is usually raised in the context of the origin of life. But some researchers(1) have recently taken a broader view and asked how simple life forms could be synthesized in the laboratory. The resulting artificial cells (sometimes called protocells) might be quite different from any extant or extinct form of life, perhaps orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest bacterium, and their synthesis need not recapitulate life's actual origins. A number of complementary studies have been steadily progressing toward the chemical construction of artificial cells (2-5).

2) There are two approaches to synthesizing artificial cells. The top-down approach aims to create them by simplifying and genetically reprogramming existing cells with simple genomes. The more general and more challenging bottom-up approach aims to assemble artificial cells from scratch using nonliving organic and inorganic materials.

3) Although the definition of life is notoriously controversial, there is general agreement that a localized molecular assemblage should be considered alive if it continually regenerates itself, replicates itself, and is capable of evolving. Regeneration and replication involve transforming molecules and energy from the environment into cellular aggregations, and evolution requires heritable variation in cellular processes. The current consensus is that the simplest way to achieve these characteristics is to house informational polymers (such as DNA and RNA) and a metabolic system that chemically regulates and regenerates cellular components within a physical container (such as a lipid vesicle).

4) Two recent workshops(1) reviewed the state of the art in artificial cell research, much of which focuses on self-replicating lipid vesicles. David Deamer (Univ. of California, Santa Cruz) and Pier Luigi Luisi (ETH Zurich) each described the production of lipids using light energy, and the template-directed self-replication of RNA within a lipid vesicle. In addition, Luisi demonstrated the polymerization of amino acids into proteins on the vesicle surface, which acts as a catalyst for the polymerization process. The principal hurdle remains the synthesis of efficient RNA replicases and related enzymes entirely within an artificial cell. Martin Hanczyc (Harvard Univ.) showed how the formation of lipid vesicles can be catalyzed by encapsulated clay particles with RNA adsorbed on their surfaces. This suggests that encapsulated clay could catalyze both the formation of lipid vesicles and the polymerization of RNA.



--------------------------------

ORIGIN OF LIFE: MODELS OF PRIMITIVE CELLULAR COMPARTMENTS

The following points are made by M.M. Hanczyc et al (Science 2003 302:618):

1) The bilayer membranes that surround all present-day cells and act as boundaries are thought to have originated in the spontaneous self-assembly of amphiphilic molecules into membrane vesicles (1-5). Simple amphiphilic molecules have been found in meteorites and have been generated under a wide variety of conditions in the laboratory, ranging from simulated ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice particles to hydrothermal processing under simulated early Earth conditions.

2) Molecules such as simple fatty acids can form membranes when the pH is close to the pK[sub-a] (K[sub-a] is the acid dissociation equilibrium constant) of the fatty acid carboxylate group in the membrane (3). Hydrogen bonding between protonated and ionized carboxylates may confer some of the properties of more complex lipids with two acyl chains, thus allowing the formation of a stable bilayer phase. Fatty acid vesicles may be further stabilized (to a wider range of pH and even to the presence of divalent cations) by the admixture of other simple amphiphiles such as fatty alcohols and fatty acid glycerol esters. Recent studies have shown that saturated fatty acid/fatty alcohol mixtures with carbon chain lengths as short as 9 can form vesicles capable of retaining ionic fluorescent dyes, DNA, and proteins (4).

3) Vesicles consisting of simple amphiphilic molecules could have existed under plausible prebiotic conditions on the early Earth, where they may have produced distinct chemical micro-environments that could retain and protect primitive oligonucleotides while potentially allowing small molecules such as activated mononucleotides to diffuse in and out of the vesicle. Furthermore, compartmentalization of replicating nucleic acids (or some other form of localization) is required to enable Darwinian evolution by preventing the random mixing of genetic polymers, thus coupling genotype and phenotype. If primordial nucleic acids assembled on mineral surfaces, the question arises as to how they eventually came to reside within membrane vesicles. Although dissociation from the mineral surface followed by encapsulation within newly forming vesicles (perhaps in a different location under different environmental conditions) is certainly a possibility, a direct route would be more satisfying and perhaps more efficient.

4) In summary: The clay montmorillonite is known to catalyze the polymerization of RNA from activated ribonucleotides. The authors report that montmorillonite accelerates the spontaneous conversion of fatty acid micelles into vesicles. Clay particles often become encapsulated in these vesicles, thus providing a pathway for the prebiotic encapsulation of catalytically active surfaces within membrane vesicles. In addition, RNA adsorbed to clay can be encapsulated within vesicles. Once formed, such vesicles can grow by incorporating fatty acid supplied as micelles and can divide without dilution of their contents by extrusion through small pores. These processes mediate vesicle replication through cycles of growth and division. The authors suggest the formation, growth, and division of the earliest cells may have occurred in response to similar interactions with mineral particles and inputs of material and energy.







http://www.bibleserralta.com/TheFirstCell.html


Inorganic matter could have never evolved into a so called "first simplest cell"

I advise that this article should be given to our young college group in an effort to help them avoid being misinformed by pseudo science.  Our young adults environment was and will be bombarded with false information.  It is important to prepare the college group in an effort to prevent a set back in their faith.

There are only two alternatives to explain the existence of living beings: one is the theory of Creation and the other is the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. The hypothesis of evolution is just a new name given to the spontaneous generation after it was discredited and proved unscientific by Pasteur's experiments. Don't let anyone fool you by the new names. No matter if it is called evolution, mutation, or whatever, what does not belong to the theory of Creation, belongs to the hypothesis of spontaneous generation.

The evolution hypothesis is based on the supposition that once upon a time the "first simplest cell" popped up from the sea and that the planet was a vast sphere of only inorganic products, until the so called "first simplest cell" appeared. After its appearance, according with the mentioned hypothesis, this cell started to live, procreate, and evolve towards more and more complex living entities. Of course, those who believe this hypothesis never bother themselves in explaining how the inorganic matter could organize itself into organic matter. To "explain" it they pass the bucket over to their god; they just put their faith in their god: "TIME". According to their faith, millions and millions of years can organize matter and do the same job that we Christians know God our Creator did. They do not explain how time can do the job; they just dogmatically affirm their god TIME can.

According to the evolution hypothesis during millions of years water had only inorganic matters in its solution till one day, by some hocus-pocus act that cannot be explained nor proved, appeared the simplest living organism: the so called "first simplest cell". This cell was the first step in a huge evolution staircase of millions of steps, which led up to human beings. If complexity went a step down from this "first simplest cell", it would become just inorganic matter; but if complexity went one step up from inorganic matter it would become the "first simplest cell". According to evolutionists, this "first simplest cell" lived for a while feeding itself from the environment, and reproducing itself, so as to bring to existence other cells just as itself. As this process continued for millions of years, the Earth was populated by cells that evolved into more complex vegetation and animals.

Can this hypothesis be substantiated, proved, or at least explained logically? Does it have no scientific or logical flaws? This is not a real scientific hypothesis because it has nothing to prove and there are several logical and scientific arguments to disprove it. It is just an act of faith by those who do not want to recognize that a Creator exists. Let us reason together using logics and our common sense, because this evolution hypothesis is out of all reason.

The so called "first cell" also called the "simplest cell", could have never existed. Why not? Let's see first what the "simplest cell" had to have in order to perform the jobs assigned to it: to live,
grow and reproduce.

First. The "first simplest cell" had to have a membrane, otherwise it was just part of the environment. In order for the cell not to be part of the environment, there had to exist a separating factor or membrane. Until not very long ago the membrane was not well known. Today we have discovered so many functions in it that there is a whole subject of study about the membrane. Even a scientific publication named "Journal of Membrane" exist, because of the complexity of the membrane and a whole lot that is needs to be learned about it. So, the "first simplest cell" had to have a very complex membrane, that had to allow food to go through but not let the inside matter get out.

Second. In order for the "first simplest cell" to keep living after popping up out of the environment, it had to have the possibility of taking inorganic matter from the environment, introduce
it in its body, and process it so as to break it into less complex inorganic matter. This would have to be done in order to get the vital energy resulting from the breaking process, so that the cell could be alive. This process is what we call digestion, performed by the stomach, or better said, by the digesting apparatus. To break inorganic matter and get the energy resulting, is a complicated process that requires lots of knowledge about what chemical products will break other ones. It is not a simple thing. So, the so called "first simplest cell" had to have a very complex digesting apparatus.

Third. Since this "first simplest cell" had to reproduce itself, it had to have a reproductive system. This reproductive system had to be skilled enough to know what would be the
right time for reproduction, because the cell cannot reproduce unless it has enough matter for itself, so as not to die in donating its own matter to the other cell.

Fourth. This "first simplest cell" had to have some ADN kind of thing, otherwise it wouldn't transmit to its descendants the necessary apparatuses to keep living, feeding and reproducing. Until some decades ago we did not know how complex the AND was. Now, that we have that knowledge we have to agree that any kind of chemical code that transmits characteristics from one cell to another is highly complex. This high complexity had to be present in the so called "first simplest cell". It is a nonsense to think that the so called first simplest cell could have ever existed.

Fifth. Because the cell had inside itself other apparatuses apart from the stomach, and because those apparatuses need to be fed, then the so called "first simplest cell" needed a distribution
system to carry the food from the stomach to other parts of the cell. This means that it had to have some sort of a simple distribution system.

Sixth. The fact of having all these apparatuses brings forth another need. The "first simplest cell" had to have an apparatus to coordinate the works of the other ones. If not, an apparatus could be working or not working as it is necessary for the cell in order to live and reproduce. This means that the cell had to have a coordinating apparatus, sort of a central nervous system.

As we can see this so called "first simplest cell" never could have been that simple, but instead highly complex, because in order to live and reproduce, it had to have many complex apparatuses. Each apparatus itself was complex enough as to not be deemed to pop up out of nothing. Much less can it be admissible to deem that all of them popped up together, in the same place, at the same time, joined together, coordinated themselves, and covered themselves with a working membrane to become a biological entity.

As I said in the title of this article:
Inorganic matter could never have evolved into a "first simplest cell".


David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-04-2012, 10:04 PM
While we have a breather in the thread; 'What's The Best Evidence For Evolution', I thought I would look at some information on living cells. Human cells are very complicated and plant cells are compliacated too. So I thought I would do a search for information on the simplest cell. We can all do the same these days and find out what webpages Google has referenced. On the first page of Google I came across two articles. The first article is from Science Week and the second is from a website created by Adolfo Serralta connected with the Bible. I do not know if Adolfo Serralta wrote this article or whether it has been donated, but it illustrates the difficulties which are apparent in the article from Scientific Week.

Evolution is based on all life/living matter originating from the simplest of cells. It is difficult to make a simple cell in the laboratory or for a simple cell to form on its own. Nature shows us many plants and insects etc. that have to produce lots of seeds and eggs for one to survive and grow. It makes sense that there has to be an environment conducive for the chemicals/materials to come together and combine to form lots of partial cells and eventually to produce complete cells for one or two complete cells to begin the process of dividing and multiplying. Everything about the processes involved with cell production is highly complicated as these two articles convey. I present the two articles to provide a balanced presentation; one from a scientific source and the second from a non-scientific source. The Science Week article is from the year 2005 so advances can be expected. If anyone has some later research as evidence to support the case for Evolution, then that is welcomed.

Excellent post David! :congrats:

It is great to review the current speculations about the simplest cell. The scientific article was typical science - trying to go from what we know to see what plausible explanations there might be for something we don't know yet. The unscientific religiously oriented article was not quite so enlightening since it was trying to argue that something we don't know is impossible. The author is obviously ignorant of science yet tries to use science to achieve their religious ends. So it's not really very helpful in this discussion except as a demonstration of creationist errors.

I must say I am confused as to why you would present a non-scientific article about one of the most difficult problems in science. What could they possible contribute? They are entirely unqualified and biased. The title of the article shows that it is more religious polemics than science: "Inorganic matter could have never evolved into a so called 'first simplest cell.'" The polemical nature of the article is quite evident in the first paragraph:
I advise that this article should be given to our young college group in an effort to help them avoid being misinformed by pseudo science. Our young adults environment was and will be bombarded with false information. It is important to prepare the college group in an effort to prevent a set back in their faith.

That's not a very "balanced" approach! To call evolution a "pseudo-science" is like a high-school drop out who can't read or write calling Einstien a moron. It not only lacks any validity, but it also reflects back on the name-caller as the truly ignorant one.

The article next moves straight into religious arguments and deliberately misinforms the reader in the process:
There are only two alternatives to explain the existence of living beings: one is the theory of Creation and the other is the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. The hypothesis of evolution is just a new name given to the spontaneous generation after it was discredited and proved unscientific by Pasteur's experiments. Don't let anyone fool you by the new names. No matter if it is called evolution, mutation, or whatever, what does not belong to the theory of Creation, belongs to the hypothesis of spontaneous generation.

Here we see the gross and inexcusable attempt to corrupt the students minds by conflating "spontaneous generation" (which was proven false by scientific experiment) with abiogensis (which has NOT been proven false by scientific experiment). This shows how profoundly corrupt the creationists really are. They are deliberately trying to deceive the students into believing that evolution has been proven false because spontaneous generation has been proven false. This is a diabolical tactic that condemns them as sons of the devil (from a Christian perspective of course).

The mindless religious diatribe continues:
The evolution hypothesis is based on the supposition that once upon a time the "first simplest cell" popped up from the sea and that the planet was a vast sphere of only inorganic products, until the so called "first simplest cell" appeared. After its appearance, according with the mentioned hypothesis, this cell started to live, procreate, and evolve towards more and more complex living entities. Of course, those who believe this hypothesis never bother themselves in explaining how the inorganic matter could organize itself into organic matter. To "explain" it they pass the bucket over to their god; they just put their faith in their god: "TIME". According to their faith, millions and millions of years can organize matter and do the same job that we Christians know God our Creator did. They do not explain how time can do the job; they just dogmatically affirm their god TIME can.

Again, they are misrepresenting the science. When they say that the first cell "popped up from the sea" they are deliberately trying to deceive the student into thinking it was a sudden discontinuous process without any natural evolutionary antecedent that would make such an event understandable. Furthermore, scientists do not think mere time is all that was needed. Natural law - the laws of physics and chemistry - play a crucial role. The deceitful writer deliberately misrepresents scientists as if they had "faith" in a god called "time." This is an exceedingly perverse lie because many Christians believe in both God and evolution. So in effect the author was accusing any Christian who believes in evolution as having a false god. And we all know who the "accuser of the brethren" is. So now we have another witness that the writer is a son of the devil.

The article now drops deeper into the abyss of creationist absurdity by using entirely unscientific and deliberately prejudicial language like "hocus-pocus" to infect the students with a knee-jerk reaction against modern science:
According to the evolution hypothesis during millions of years water had only inorganic matters in its solution till one day, by some hocus-pocus act that cannot be explained nor proved, appeared the simplest living organism: the so called "first simplest cell". This cell was the first step in a huge evolution staircase of millions of steps, which led up to human beings. If complexity went a step down from this "first simplest cell", it would become just inorganic matter; but if complexity went one step up from inorganic matter it would become the "first simplest cell". According to evolutionists, this "first simplest cell" lived for a while feeding itself from the environment, and reproducing itself, so as to bring to existence other cells just as itself. As this process continued for millions of years, the Earth was populated by cells that evolved into more complex vegetation and animals.



Can this hypothesis be substantiated, proved, or at least explained logically? Does it have no scientific or logical flaws? This is not a real scientific hypothesis because it has nothing to prove and there are several logical and scientific arguments to disprove it. It is just an act of faith by those who do not want to recognize that a Creator exists. Let us reason together using logics and our common sense, because this evolution hypothesis is out of all reason.

They are right that the speculations about abiogenesis do not rise even to the level of a "scientific hypothesis" and that's exactly what any real scientist would tell you. The writer is trying to deceive the reader by making them believe that scientists assert these speculations as if they were "a real scientific hypothesis." Furthermore, they have deliberately conflated the entire theory of evolution and all the evidence supporting it with speculations about abiogenesis in an effort to discredit the theory. They are deceivers, pure and simple.

Next, they present arguments about why the first cell could not have existed:
First. The "first simplest cell" had to have a membrane, otherwise it was just part of the environment. In order for the cell not to be part of the environment, there had to exist a separating factor or membrane. Until not very long ago the membrane was not well known. Today we have discovered so many functions in it that there is a whole subject of study about the membrane. Even a scientific publication named "Journal of Membrane" exist, because of the complexity of the membrane and a whole lot that is needs to be learned about it. So, the "first simplest cell" had to have a very complex membrane, that had to allow food to go through but not let the inside matter get out.

Here the writer deliberately misrepresents the science of cells. Yes, it is true that modern cells have very complex membranes, but there is no reason to assume that the first simplest cell was as complex as modern cells. The scientific article that you sited shows their error:
1) The bilayer membranes that surround all present-day cells and act as boundaries are thought to have originated in the spontaneous self-assembly of amphiphilic molecules into membrane vesicles (1-5). Simple amphiphilic molecules have been found in meteorites and have been generated under a wide variety of conditions in the laboratory, ranging from simulated ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice particles to hydrothermal processing under simulated early Earth conditions.

It is not obvious that the membrane is an insurmountable theoretical problem prohibiting abiogenesis.

Next:
Second. In order for the "first simplest cell" to keep living after popping up out of the environment, it had to have the possibility of taking inorganic matter from the environment, introduce it in its body, and process it so as to break it into less complex inorganic matter. This would have to be done in order to get the vital energy resulting from the breaking process, so that the cell could be alive. This process is what we call digestion, performed by the stomach, or better said, by the digesting apparatus. To break inorganic matter and get the energy resulting, is a complicated process that requires lots of knowledge about what chemical products will break other ones. It is not a simple thing. So, the so called "first simplest cell" had to have a very complex digesting apparatus.

This argument is absurd. A "stomach" is not required, let alone a "very complex stomach." Their assertions have no basis in fact. There is no "stomach" in a bacterial cell! The scientific ignorance displayed in this article is abominable.

The third point is equally ignorant:
Third. Since this "first simplest cell" had to reproduce itself, it had to have a reproductive system. This reproductive system had to be skilled enough to know what would be the right time for reproduction, because the cell cannot reproduce unless it has enough matter for itself, so as not to die in donating its own matter to the other cell.

Bacteria don't need to "know" anything. There is no need to "know the right time" for reproduction of bacteria. They just do it when the conditions are right.

The fourth point has some validity:
Fourth. This "first simplest cell" had to have some ADN kind of thing, otherwise it wouldn't transmit to its descendants the necessary apparatuses to keep living, feeding and reproducing. Until some decades ago we did not know how complex the AND was. Now, that we have that knowledge we have to agree that any kind of chemical code that transmits characteristics from one cell to another is highly complex. This high complexity had to be present in the so called "first simplest cell". It is a nonsense to think that the so called first simplest cell could have ever existed.

Yes, the first cell had to have DNA. But to say that this makes abiogensis impossible is just an assertion that begs the question. And since the author of the article is grossly ignorant of the most basic science, no one in their right mind would believe anything they say merely because they said it.

Well, that's enough for tonight. I'm done reviewing that pathetic article. Simply stated, the article is typical mindless creationist pablum. It is the purest bullshit. One of my avocations may be scatology, but I can only deal with so much before I need to take a break and breath some fresh air. But I'm really glad you posted it so now I can put it in my library of articles that show how utterly ignorant and corrupt creationists really are.

Thanks!

Richard

David M
07-05-2012, 01:55 AM
Well, that's enough for tonight. I'm done reviewing that pathetic article. Simply stated, the article is typical mindless creationist pablum. It is the purest bullshit. One of my avocations may be scatology, but I can only deal with so much before I need to take a break and breath some fresh air. But I'm really glad you posted it so now I can put it in my library of articles that show how utterly ignorant and corrupt creationists really are.

Thanks!

Richard

Hello Richard

the article has given you the chance to answer the questions and address the problems it raises. I have a science education, so I know enough to understand basic science and the writer of the article is not claiming to be a scientific expert. I do not want to refute your every response and you are probably correct in some things you have stated in your reply. When the writer of the article referred to a "stomach", he was presenting the fact that the cell has to take in food an process it. This is a complex operation. We know the cell does not have a "stomach" as we know the stomach to be in humans, but we know what the writer means and it is not good to try and debunk the writer on these grounds. Your belittling the witer in this respect does you no credit; in the same way you state in the quote I have highlighted.

OK, I appreciate you were tired at the time of saying what you said and that and your reasoning abandoned you for a while. I am trying to get us off this way of inserting our opinions. We have a number of points in this article and each one can be dealt with until the subject is exhausted; this would take longer than we have time for. Maybe we can deal with one to prove a point. As this article gets corrected, we should be leading up to situation where we have found and agreed to the lies and resigned them to the dustbin of history. We should be building on a foundation of truth, and until all the evidence is in, the jury cannot make a judgment. Thanks for your response. Now is the time for the more learned amongst us to give their explanations based on science (and not opinion) to correct the errors they see in your response.

BTW, I meant regulator or referee when I said moderator in my post in another thread; I had forum-speak on my mind at the time. No-one is using offensive language to be moderated and that is good. It does need an impartial person to keep us on track when discussing these issues, which is what I have tried to do here. Present the facts without expressing (abusive) opinion such as "bullshit"; now I sense your frustration just as I was getting frustated by having to hear such words and arguments (please don't send me to that place again).

Let's hope we can keep ourselves more disciplined in the way we respond to posts on this forum.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-05-2012, 10:08 AM
Hello Richard

the article has given you the chance to answer the questions and address the problems it raises. I have a science education, so I know enough to understand basic science and the writer of the article is not claiming to be a scientific expert. I do not want to refute your every response and you are probably correct in some things you have stated in your reply. When the writer of the article referred to a "stomach", he was presenting the fact that the cell has to take in food an process it. This is a complex operation. We know the cell does not have a "stomach" as we know the stomach to be in humans, but we know what the writer means and it is not good to try and debunk the writer on these grounds. Your belittling the witer in this respect does you no credit; in the same way you state in the quote I have highlighted.

OK, I appreciate you were tired at the time of saying what you said and that and your reasoning abandoned you for a while. I am trying to get us off this way of inserting our opinions. We have a number of points in this article and each one can be dealt with until the subject is exhausted; this would take longer than we have time for. Maybe we can deal with one to prove a point. As this article gets corrected, we should be leading up to situation where we have found and agreed to the lies and resigned them to the dustbin of history. We should be building on a foundation of truth, and until all the evidence is in, the jury cannot make a judgment. Thanks for your response. Now is the time for the more learned amongst us to give their explanations based on science (and not opinion) to correct the errors they see in your response.

BTW, I meant regulator or referee when I said moderator in my post in another thread; I had forum-speak on my mind at the time. No-one is using offensive language to be moderated and that is good. It does need an impartial person to keep us on track when discussing these issues, which is what I have tried to do here. Present the facts without expressing (abusive) opinion such as "bullshit"; now I sense your frustration just as I was getting frustated by having to hear such words and arguments (please don't send me to that place again).

Let's hope we can keep ourselves more disciplined in the way we respond to posts on this forum.

All the best,

David

Good morning David,

I really appreciate your well-reasoned and thoughtful response. I accept your admonition that we should "keep ourselves more disciplined in the way we respond to posts on this forum." I admit that I spoke too harshly and used unnecessarily offensive language. Thank you for understanding that I was "tired." That's not an excuse - it is just a fact. Your post is an excellent example for all to follow, including myself. You are helping make this forum into a place for serious and mutually respectful discourse on very divisive issues. Your contribution is greatly appreciated.

As for a moderator: The forum has done very well for many years because almost all people who come here seem to have a pretty good idea of how to talk to others. There have only been a few - maybe ten or so - times when I have had to edit out deliberately offensive comments that were aimed at other users. I try to keep the forum as open as possible. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to the language people use when criticizing ideas. For example, I don't moderate Cheow when he says "evolution is bullshit" or "evolutionists are liars." Perhaps this was an error since it opened the door for me to make the same mistake. But then again, is it really an error to call something a lie when you can prove it? Perhaps not, but even so it may not be edifying. It is important to note that I was consciously letting myself go because I felt a need to "slap down" the creationists using their own language since they habitually slander evolutionists as liars.

One thing to keep in mind is that I "popped my top" when responding to the video that Cheow posted which slandered the entire body of evolutionary scientists as deliberate deceivers. This really got my blood boiling because their video contained a number of deliberate lies and misrepresentations which I proved with evidence. But still, my criticism would have been much stronger if I just let the facts speak for themselves as you suggest. And Rose gave me a similar criticism after reading your post. So I'm pretty much convicted on this point. Thanks for the "wounds" my friend!

On the upside, my error gives me a chance to publicly repent, and to acknowledge your good words. That's the real freedom of having nothing to "protect." I can admit when I'm wrong, and thank my "accuser" for helping me mend my ways.

I'm looking forward to more fruitful conversations with you, my friend. :sunny:

Richard

David M
07-06-2012, 12:51 AM
Good morning Richard.

Let's take our discussion of the simplest cell to the next stage.
You say that the bacteria cell is the simplest. I have no reason to doubt that statement. I have a series of questions that have to be answered to get down to fundamentals. The questions can be answered by producing the latest scientific research. The article from Science Week I supplied was from the year 2005 and we can expect great steps forward to have taken place in the last 7 years. There must be recent evidence to show us the progress made.

Here are the questions which have to be answered:

1. What is the simplest bacteria known? (A diagram of the simplest bacteria to show us the essential components of bacteria would be a help)

2. Is science saying there might have been even simpler cells not in existence today which formed intermediate paths leading to the simplest bacteria which has been found?

3. What is the simplest component of bacteria to produce?

4. Has science been able to manufacture all the compounds necessary to produce the simplest component of bacteria?

5. Is there a list of all the compounds necessary to make the simplest component of bacteria, and if so, can you produce a list for us to see?

6. Has the simplest component of bacteria already been manufactured in the laboratory?


We have to start somewhere, so we have to get to the most basic parts from which to produce a cell of some kind.

Let's find the best evidence for the beginning of Evolution


All the best,

David

Rose
07-06-2012, 09:03 AM
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/dot_clear.gif





From prokaryotes to eukaryotes





http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/dot_clear.gif
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/endosymbiosis/3domains2.gif


Living things have evolved into three large clusters of closely related organisms, called "domains": Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota. Archaea and Bacteria are small, relatively simple cells surrounded by a membrane and a cell wall, with a circular strand of DNA containing their genes. They are called prokaryotes. Virtually all the life we see each day — including plants and animals — belongs to the third domain, Eukaryota. Eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotes, and the DNA is linear and found within a nucleus. Eukaryotic cells boast their own personal "power plants", called mitochondria (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/glossary/glossary_popup.php?word=mitochondrion). These tiny organelles in the cell not only produce chemical energy, but also hold the key to understanding the evolution of the eukaryotic cell.





http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/endosymbiosis/cells.gif


The complex eukaryotic cell ushered in a whole new era for life on Earth, because these cells evolved into multicellular organisms. But how did the eukaryotic cell itself evolve? How did a humble bacterium make this evolutionary leap from a simple prokaryotic cell to a more complex eukaryotic cell? The answer seems to be symbiosis — in other words, teamwork.
Evidence supports the idea that eukaryotic cells are actually the descendents of separate prokaryotic cells that joined together in a symbiotic union. In fact, the mitochondrion itself seems to be the "great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter" of a free-living bacterium that was engulfed by another cell, perhaps as a meal, and ended up staying as a sort of permanent houseguest. The host cell profited from the chemical energy the mitochondrion produced, and the mitochondrion benefited from the protected, nutrient-rich environment surrounding it. This kind of "internal" symbiosis — one organism taking up permanent residence inside another and eventually evolving into a single lineage — is called endosymbiosis.



http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/endosymbiosis/endosymbiosis.gif





This is a very good site for understanding Evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/endosymbiosis_03).

Rose
07-06-2012, 09:51 AM
Lesson #2 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/endosymbiosis_04)on the evolution of the simplest cell...

Biologist Lynn Margulis first made the case for endosymbiosis in the 1960s, but for many years other biologists were skeptical. Although Jeon watched his amoebae become infected with the x-bacteria and then evolve to depend upon them, no one was around over a billion years ago to observe the events of endosymbiosis. Why should we think that a mitochondrion used to be a free-living organism in its own right? It turns out that many lines of evidence support this idea. Most important are the many striking similarities between prokaryotes (like bacteria) and mitochondria:



Membranes — Mitochondria have their own cell membranes, just like a prokaryotic cell does.
DNA — Each mitochondrion has its own circular DNA genome, like a bacteria's genome, but much smaller. This DNA is passed from a mitochondrion to its offspring and is separate from the "host" cell's genome in the nucleus.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/endosymbiosis/mitochondria.gif


Reproduction — Mitochondria multiply by pinching in half — the same process used by bacteria. Every new mitochondrion must be produced from a parent mitochondrion in this way; if a cell's mitochondria are removed, it can't build new ones from scratch.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/endosymbiosis/mitochondria2.gif


When you look at it this way, mitochondria really resemble tiny bacteria making their livings inside eukaryotic cells! Based on decades of accumulated evidence, the scientific community supports Margulis's ideas: endosymbiosis is the best explanation for the evolution of the eukaryotic cell.
What's more, the evidence for endosymbiosis applies not only to mitochondria, but to other cellular organelles as well. Chloroplasts (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/glossary/glossary_popup.php?word=chloroplast) are like tiny green factories within plant cells that help convert energy from sunlight into sugars, and they have many similarities to mitochondria. The evidence suggests that these chloroplast organelles were also once free-living bacteria.
The endosymbiotic event that generated mitochondria must have happened early in the history of eukaryotes, because all eukaryotes have them. Then, later, a similar event brought chloroplasts into some eukaryotic cells, creating the lineage that led to plants.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/endosymbiosis/eukaryote_clade.gif

Despite their many similarities, mitochondria (and chloroplasts) aren't free-living bacteria anymore. The first eukaryotic cell evolved more than a billion years ago. Since then, these organelles have become completely dependent on their host cells. For example, many of the key proteins needed by the mitochondrion are imported from the rest of the cell. Sometime during their long-standing relationship, the genes that code for these proteins were transferred from the mitochondrion to its host's genome. Scientists consider this mixing of genomes to be the irreversible step at which the two independent organisms become a single individual.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-06-2012, 12:49 PM
Good morning Richard.

Let's take our discussion of the simplest cell to the next stage.
You say that the bacteria cell is the simplest. I have no reason to doubt that statement. I have a series of questions that have to be answered to get down to fundamentals. The questions can be answered by producing the latest scientific research. The article from Science Week I supplied was from the year 2005 and we can expect great steps forward to have taken place in the last 7 years. There must be recent evidence to show us the progress made.

Here are the questions which have to be answered:

1. What is the simplest bacteria known? (A diagram of the simplest bacteria to show us the essential components of bacteria would be a help)

2. Is science saying there might have been even simpler cells not in existence today which formed intermediate paths leading to the simplest bacteria which has been found?

3. What is the simplest component of bacteria to produce?

4. Has science been able to manufacture all the compounds necessary to produce the simplest component of bacteria?

5. Is there a list of all the compounds necessary to make the simplest component of bacteria, and if so, can you produce a list for us to see?

6. Has the simplest component of bacteria already been manufactured in the laboratory?


We have to start somewhere, so we have to get to the most basic parts from which to produce a cell of some kind.

Let's find the best evidence for the beginning of Evolution


All the best,

David
Hi David, :yo:

Good questions! I'll have to do some research to answer. The articles posted by Rose are a good place to start to get a basic understanding of the evolution of the simplest cells.

One point occurred to me this morning. Scientists have concluded that the first cells were the prokaryotes with no nucleus. They believe they evolved about 3 billion years ago whereas it took another two billion years for the eukaryotes to evolve. Think about that - it took 2 billion years to evolve from a prokaryote to a eukaryote. How would you account for this fact from a creationist point of view? It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view, but why would God create prokaryotes and then wait for 2 billion years to move to the next step?

Great chatting!

Richard

David M
07-06-2012, 02:36 PM
This is a very good site for understanding Evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/endosymbiosis_03).

Hello Rose

Thank you for this post and the following post showing diagrams of bacteria. I shall accept this as answer to qestion #1 about supplying a diagram of the bacteria cell.

In exchange for your link the website explaining Evolution, I give you this link to a website posing the question; Was Darwin right - Chance or design? (http://www.wasdarwinright.com/simplecells.htm)

At this stage of the discussion I do not want to tackle the complex components of the bacteria cell. We can discuss cell intergration and division once we have esablished evidence or proof for the simplest of components to be formed. Once we have estblished that the simplest component can be formed, we study the next least simplest component and so on until (if ever) we run in to a serious obstacle to the Evolutionay development of the bacteria cell. At the moment I am making no judgments.

On the webpage I have given you the link to, it discusses bacteria; the simplest of cells. Halfway down the page there is a link to a a .pdf file which is an article from; New Scientist, 151(2047):49


I will let you draw your own conclusions once reading the webpage and the New Scientist article.


All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-06-2012, 02:57 PM
Hello Rose

Thank you for this post and the following post showing diagrams of bacteria. I shall accept this as answer to qestion #1 about supplying a diagram of the bacteria cell.

In exchange for your link the website explaining Evolution, I give you this link to a website posing the question; Was Darwin right - Chance or design? (http://www.wasdarwinright.com/simplecells.htm)

At this stage of the discussion I do not want to tackle the complex components of the bacteria cell. We can discuss cell intergration and division once we have esablished evidence or proof for the simplest of components to be formed. Once we have estblished that the simplest component can be formed, we study the next least simplest component and so on until (if ever) we run in to a serious obstacle to the Evolutionay development of the bacteria cell. At the moment I am making no judgments.

On the webpage I have given you the link to, it discusses bacteria; the simplest of cells. Halfway down the page there is a link to a a .pdf file which is an article from; New Scientist, 151(2047):49


I will let you draw your own conclusions once reading the webpage and the New Scientist article.


All the best,

David

Hi David,

Thanks for the links. The article on simple cells looks interesting. I only had time to glance at it, but it looks like they are trying to be true to science and deal with the facts. That's good. But it brings up something important. When creationists finally accept science (which that site seems to do) then what's the point? It doesn't matter if we must conclude that the first cell was designed by God because we are now so far removed from the Biblical story of creation (Young Earth, direct creation of each "kind", etc.). I would be very interested to know why you think any of this is important. The Bible says nothing about God creating the first cell and then letting (or guiding) evolution as the actual process of creation. Is this what you believe now? If not, I don't see why we are digressing on this point (except that it's totally fascinating!).

What are the real issues where Christianity clashes with the modern scientific worldview? Here are a few questions that would help clarify things:

1) Do you accept that life has been on this planet for about 3.8 billion years?

2) Do you believe this basic timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life) is correct in any way at all?


procaryotes began about 3.8 billion years ago,
eukaryotes about 2 billion years ago,
multicellular organisms about one billion years ago
Cambrian explosion (bilateral body plans) about half a billion years ago
dinosaurs about 300 million years ago
etc.


3) If you don't accept the time line, how do you account for all the fossil evidence that shows organisms changed from less complex to more complex as time advanced?

Great chatting!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
07-06-2012, 03:57 PM
This information is very important for anyone who wants to understand evolution. It's from a page on PBS.com called Genetic Tool Kit (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_04.html). There is a short video on the page that explains these ideas very well.


Neil Shubin (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html#shubin_neil) and Sean Carroll (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html#carroll_sean) discuss homeobox genes (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html#homeobox_genes), a set of genes that produce basic body parts in all animals. In 1994, Walter Gehring (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html#gehring_walter_j) discovered the eyeless gene, which guides formation of fruit fly eyes. As an experiment, Gehring put a mouse's eyeless gene into a fruit fly, resulting in normal fruit fly eyes. The same holds true for homeobox genes for wings, legs, even heads. This discovery indicates that animals descended from a single common ancestor that passed along to them a set of homeobox genes, used to build a wide variety of forms from just a few basic body plans. From Evolution: "Great Transformations" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/index.html)
Again, we have solid genetic evidence that "indicates that animals descended from a single common ancestor."

CWH
07-06-2012, 05:05 PM
This information is very important for anyone who wants to understand evolution. It's from a page on PBS.com called Genetic Tool Kit (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_04.html). There is a short video on the page that explains these ideas very well.


Again, we have solid genetic evidence that "indicates that animals descended from a single common ancestor."

No it is not evidence of evolution because the logic is that someone or something intelligent have to put this eyeless gene into the fruit fly eye. This have never occur on its own in nature.

God Bless Creation.:pray:

David M
07-06-2012, 05:14 PM
Hi David, :yo:

Good questions! I'll have to do some research to answer. The articles posted by Rose are a good place to start to get a basic understanding of the evolution of the simplest cells.

One point occurred to me this morning. Scientists have concluded that the first cells were the prokaryotes with no nucleus. They believe they evolved about 3 billion years ago whereas it took another two billion years for the eukaryotes to evolve. Think about that - it took 2 billion years to evolve from a prokaryote to a eukaryote. How would you account for this fact from a creationist point of view? It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view, but why would God create prokaryotes and then wait for 2 billion years to move to the next step?

Great chatting!

Richard


Thank you Richard.


Take all the time you need to gather the evidence/information. Getting the most recent scientific reports might not be easy unless you know where to look or have special access to confidential information.

This thread can stay in limbo until you come back with answers to the questions and we establish the simplest component and see what is involved in its production and whether the science laboratory has come close to replicating the process.


In answers to your questions.
The 2 billion year gap from a prokaryote to a eukaryote means nothing in Creation terms (exluding evolutionay periods for species to multiply). If God can create all life; bacteria, plant and human life, He could have done so rapidly. I am not dismissing evolution within species over time that produced the variety of species having similarities. I did not want to get involved at this stage about Evolution/Creation of man, though man could have been created quickly as this was the last of God's creation having proved and fine tuned all living life forms before creating man.

Please take the following as food for though, they are my speculations and at this stage. I am not out to prove anything, but I am answering your questions and giving thoughts that would account for the Theory Evolution to be answered by Creation in that evolutionary links are in fact steps in Creation.

If you want evidence of God creating quickly, this is endorsed by the miracles. Of course if you don't believe the miracles, there is no proof for anything, but this is the Bible giving additional evidence in support of the Creation process. From the Biblical perspective, the power of God to create man is endorsed by the resurrection of Lazarus and of Jesus. It is this assurance of the resurrection of Jesus to eternal life (as you know) is the foundation of the Christian faith. Life after death involves a transformation that does not take billions of years. However, the Creation process might have involved periods in which evolution of the species was inbuilt, but when God came to create man, God had already created and proven His designs of all basic species and proven the building blocks of life all work and are perect. This would mean that God could create man quicker than any other life form. If the initial life forms had not been created quickly, corruption would have set in before they were complete.

God must have manipulated molecules at lightening speed in performing miracles. Raising a person from the dead is no less complicated that creating the first man or woman. The miracles of healing support the fact of creation of man in a very short space of time. Either the body has to be formed quickly or preserved while in the process of creation or it corrupts before complete. Normal biological processes would mean that the body would start to decay unless God could keep the body in suspended animation. This is another subject that scientist think they are close to solving, but that is another subject for another thread.

The 2 billion year gap makes sense from an Evolutionary point of view, but we do not know that God waited that long. Remember, you started your questions by saying; "scientists believe about 3 billion...." You have not said; "science has proved...." What is the evidence/proof for the scientists' belief? Now if God did create the simplest life forms first and gradually created more complex organisms over a period of time, we can consider this as God laying the foundations leading up to the creation of man. By creating life forms is ascending complexity, God could be using building blocks already proven to work correctly. Maybe anything that did not work correctly was destroyed or allowed to die off. Note; this is my own speculation to derive a sense of order to creation which science is interpreting as evolution.

If Creation did not happen at stages, there is nothing else to do other than try to find an evolutionary connection between all living things. If Creation did happen it does not have to exclude long periods of time. Hence as someone who believes in God and God's power to create, I also can reason that God incorporated periods in which adaptation of the species ocurred. So species could have adapated/evolved but not necessarily into different kinds. Because of the similarity using basic build blocks of life, this will give cause to see links/similarities that lead non-believers in Creation to think they have proven that all life forms are interconnected and could have developed without God. However, this brings us back to considering how the simplest of all life-form components could have formed from basic molecules.

By considering that God's creation began with simple life forms and God creating evermore complex life-forms over a long period of time until the creation of each individual species was complete and was eventually described as "good" (or perfect), everything was in put in place reay for the creation of man which was done quickly. This goes someways to explaining evolution in terms of phases of creation. It makes sense for God to create all the simpler life forms first and proving them perfect before creationg man who would also be perfect. In so doing God was also preparing the environment for man to live and all living forms to exist.

So in the creation of the species in which God builds on already established building blocks for life, it is not surprising that links/similarities between the species can be seen and it is these similarities that science sees as evolutionary links. This is a somewhat unorthadox interpretation of the Creation involving creation and evolutionary time periods, but would go to explain the long time gaps leading up to man, and that man was created quickly. This can also give a reasons for scientists to see evolutionary links within species and the similarities between different kinds. As you say, Evolution does not recognize kinds, but from the creational point of view, it explains why different kinds cannot reproduce. Evolution/science has not proven to my satisfaction the links between kinds. The only links I see is similarites in the basic building blocks of life as God created ever more complex life forms.


At this stage, I would prefer not to argue with timescales (or any of the above answers) and stick to the question of how we prove the simplest cell components could have formed themselves from the basic elements/molcules.


This thread can now wait to be resumed once you have prepared your answers.



All the best,

David

CWH
07-06-2012, 05:20 PM
[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;47113]Hi David,

Thanks for the links. The article on simple cells looks interesting. I only had time to glance at it, but it looks like they are trying to be true to science and deal with the facts. That's good. But it brings up something important. When creationists finally accept science (which that site seems to do) then what's the point? It doesn't matter if we must conclude that the first cell was designed by God because we are now so far removed from the Biblical story of creation (Young Earth, direct creation of each "kind", etc.). I would be very interested to know why you think any of this is important. The Bible says nothing about God creating the first cell and then letting (or guiding) evolution as the actual process of creation. Is this what you believe now? If not, I don't see why we are digressing on this point (except that it's totally fascinating!).
Neither have science proved that the first cell was somehow created or formed by its own. How was it created or formed by its own? Neither have science proved that the first cell was a simple cell.


What are the real issues where Christianity clashes with the modern scientific worldview? Here are a few questions that would help clarify things:

1) Do you accept that life has been on this planet for about 3.8 billion years?
No, there are evidence that this planet is not 3.8 billion years old. There are evidence that the dating technology used may be faulty as there are variations in the datings used by different technologies. Evidence of a young earth:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-young-world



2) Do you believe this basic timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life) is correct in any way at all?
It's a human imagination same as people imagining cars evolved from bicyce and motorcycles. I could easily give a timeline of how cars evolve from the invention of wheels, carts, chariots, carriages etc.



procaryotes began about 3.8 billion years ago,
eukaryotes about 2 billion years ago,
multicellular organisms about one billion years ago
Cambrian explosion (bilateral body plans) about half a billion years ago
dinosaurs about 300 million years ago
etc.


3) If you don't accept the time line, how do you account for all the fossil evidence that shows organisms changed from less complex to more complex as time advanced?
And how do you account for life that remains unchanged for millions of years such as the horse shoe crab which shows that there is no such thing as less complex life evolving to more complex life. How do you explain the sudden change from one complex life to another such as from dinosaurs to mammals. The only explanation is that someone or something intelligent created them by altering their DNAs.

God Bless Creations.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-06-2012, 05:22 PM
No it is not evidence of evolution because the logic is that someone or something intelligent have to put this eyeless gene into the fruit fly eye. This have never occur on its own in nature.

You totally missed the point. They didn't say a word about nature putting mouse genes into fruit flies. Can you tell my why those scientists said what they said? Did you understand a word of it?

CWH
07-06-2012, 05:29 PM
You totally missed the point. They didn't say a word about nature putting mouse genes into fruit flies. Can you tell my why those scientists said what they said? Did you understand a word of it?

Can't you read this PUT in enlarge thus showing that human not Nature put that gene. It has never occur naturally but artificially :


Neil Shubin and Sean Carroll discuss homeobox genes, a set of genes that produce basic body parts in all animals. In 1994, Walter Gehring discovered the eyeless gene, which guides formation of fruit fly eyes. As an experiment, Gehring put a mouse's eyeless gene into a fruit fly, resulting in normal fruit fly eyes. The same holds true for homeobox genes for wings, legs, even heads. This discovery indicates that animals descended from a single common ancestor that passed along to them a set of homeobox genes, used to build a wide variety of forms from just a few basic body plans. From Evolution: "Great Transformations"

God Bless.

David M
07-06-2012, 05:39 PM
Hi David,

Thanks for the links. The article on simple cells looks interesting. I only had time to glance at it, but it looks like they are trying to be true to science and deal with the facts. That's good. But it brings up something important. When creationists finally accept science (which that site seems to do) then what's the point? It doesn't matter if we must conclude that the first cell was designed by God because we are now so far removed from the Biblical story of creation (Young Earth, direct creation of each "kind", etc.). I would be very interested to know why you think any of this is important. The Bible says nothing about God creating the first cell and then letting (or guiding) evolution as the actual process of creation. Is this what you believe now? If not, I don't see why we are digressing on this point (except that it's totally fascinating!).

What are the real issues where Christianity clashes with the modern scientific worldview? Here are a few questions that would help clarify things:

1) Do you accept that life has been on this planet for about 3.8 billion years?

2) Do you believe this basic timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life) is correct in any way at all?


procaryotes began about 3.8 billion years ago,
eukaryotes about 2 billion years ago,
multicellular organisms about one billion years ago
Cambrian explosion (bilateral body plans) about half a billion years ago
dinosaurs about 300 million years ago
etc.


3) If you don't accept the time line, how do you account for all the fossil evidence that shows organisms changed from less complex to more complex as time advanced?

Great chatting!

Richard

Richard
In the time it took me to write and submit my reply to your post before this one in which you asked similar questions, I think I have answered this. I do not exclude long periods of time, though I am not going to readily agree that the time scales you quote are necessariy correct, but let's agree somewhere in the middle rather than stop this discussion going futher. I have given my somewhat unorthodox speculations in order to see why Creation can lead to showing how scientists can take what is seen in Creation asv proof of their theory of Evolution. Evolutionists are not going to agree that God exists, but I see that by God's intelligent design he has created things in order and increasing complexity and with such similarities in the basic building blocks of life Evolutionists can see this as evidence for supporting their theory of Evolution denying God of any involvement.

What I have said, I expect Creationists to correct me. However, I accept God created the earth and man upon it however it was done. I am not basing my belief in God on the story of Creation alone. If God had not given us the story, it would not stop me believing in God for the many other reasons I see recorded in the Bible; for example, prophecies concerning the Israel, the coherency of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus etc. etc.

Let's stay on track discussing the simplest cell.


David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-06-2012, 07:48 PM
Can you tell my why those scientists said what they said? Did you understand a word of it?

Can't you read this PUT in enlarge thus showing that human not Nature put that gene. It has never occur naturally but artificially :

You didn't answer my question.

Can you tell me why those scientists concluded that all animals share a common ancestor? What evidence supported their conclusion? Can you answer this simple question?

Richard Amiel McGough
07-06-2012, 08:35 PM
Richard
In the time it took me to write and submit my reply to your post before this one in which you asked similar questions, I think I have answered this. I do not exclude long periods of time, though I am not going to readily agree that the time scales you quote are necessariy correct, but let's agree somewhere in the middle rather than stop this discussion going futher. I have given my somewhat unorthodox speculations in order to see why Creation can lead to showing how scientists can take what is seen in Creation asv proof of their theory of Evolution. Evolutionists are not going to agree that God exists, but I see that by God's intelligent design he has created things in order and increasing complexity and with such similarities in the basic building blocks of life Evolutionists can see this as evidence for supporting their theory of Evolution denying God of any involvement.

What I have said, I expect Creationists to correct me. However, I accept God created the earth and man upon it however it was done. I am not basing my belief in God on the story of Creation alone. If God had not given us the story, it would not stop me believing in God for the many other reasons I see recorded in the Bible; for example, prophecies concerning the Israel, the coherency of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus etc. etc.

Let's stay on track discussing the simplest cell.


David
Hi David,

The reason I asked about your opinion of the basic timeline of the history of life on this planet was to find out if we shared any common understanding of science. It is very difficult to discuss science with creationists because they use scientific results inconsistently. When a conclusion suits the creationist argument, they cite it as if it were an indisputable scientific fact. When it contradicts creationism, they simply reject it making up whatever reasons are necessary. This is illogical because the conclusions that they accepted are based on the same set of assumptions that they reject! It is extremely confusing to talk to a creationist because I can never depend upon their acceptance of the facts that they used in coming to their conclusions!

The creationist strategy fails to understand the consilience of science - the unity of scientific knowledge. You can't arbitrarily pick and choose which conclusions you accept and which you don't. When you question the dates you are not merely questioning the dates, you are questioning all the assumptions (which are based on the best scientific facts available) that went into making those conclusions. In effect, you are rejecting the entire body of scientific knowledge. The creationist arguments are therefore self-refuting.

Please try to understand what I am getting at. Science is our "window on reality." It seems to me that creationism is like looking through a shattered window. It totally distorts the image:

510

When creationists cite scientific results, they are implicitly accepting ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS that the scientist used to come to those results. If they reject any of the assumptions that the scientist made, then they cannot accept the conclusion.

Case in point: The timeline of the history of life on this planet is based on conclusions drawn from physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, geology, evolution, astronomy, and many other disciplines. If you reject those dates, you are bringing into question every fact from all those sciences that confirmed those dates.

If the foundation is destroyed, how can we proceed in this discourse? You can't cite any science because essentially all science contradicts your assumptions about creationism.

All the best,

Richard

CWH
07-06-2012, 08:45 PM
You didn't answer my question.

Can you tell me why those scientists concluded that all animals share a common ancestor? What evidence supported their conclusion? Can you answer this simple question?

Neither did you understand me. There is no common ancestor if someone have to put a gene into an organism. It will only proved common descent if that gene occurs naturally instead of being PUT. It's like saying that all computer virus came from the first computer virus which is a simple computer code made by an computer programmer which evolved by itself into more complicated computer viruses and worms that we see today. And no computer viruses ever evolved by itself, they are all made by humans! They proved that they come from a common descent call computer codes.

God Bless.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-06-2012, 08:52 PM
Neither did you understand me. There is no common ancestor if someone have to put a gene into an organism. It will only proved common descent if that gene occurs naturally instead of being PUT. It's like saying that all computer virus came from the first computer virus which is a simple computer code made by an computer programmer which evolved by itself into more complicated computer viruses and worms that we see today. And no computer viruses ever evolved by itself, they are all made by humans!

God Bless.:pray:
You still didn't answer my question.

CWH
07-06-2012, 08:58 PM
You still didn't answer my question.

And all computer viruses of yesterday and today share a common descent call simple computer codes made by humans,


Neither did you understand me. There is no common ancestor if someone have to put a gene into an organism. It will only proved common descent if that gene occurs naturally instead of being PUT. It's like saying that all computer virus came from the first computer virus which is a simple computer code made by an computer programmer which evolved by itself into more complicated computer viruses and worms that we see today. And no computer viruses ever evolved by itself, they are all made by humans! They proved that they come from a common descent call computer codes.

God Bless.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-06-2012, 09:09 PM
And all computer viruses of yesterday and today share a common descent call simple computer codes made by humans,

.

God Bless.
You still did not answer my question.

Why did those scientists think their experiment was good evidence for their conclusion?

And why do other scientists agree with them?

David M
07-07-2012, 01:44 AM
Hi David,

The reason I asked about your opinion of the basic timeline of the history of life on this planet was to find out if we shared any common understanding of science. It is very difficult to discuss science with creationists because they use scientific results inconsistently. When a conclusion suits the creationist argument, they cite it as if it were an indisputable scientific fact. When it contradicts creationism, they simply reject it making up whatever reasons are necessary. This is illogical because the conclusions that they accepted are based on the same set of assumptions that they reject! It is extremely confusing to talk to a creationist because I can never depend upon their acceptance of the facts that they used in coming to their conclusions!

The creationist strategy fails to understand the consilience of science - the unity of scientific knowledge. You can't arbitrarily pick and choose which conclusions you accept and which you don't. When you question the dates you are not merely questioning the dates, you are questioning all the assumptions (which are based on the best scientific facts available) that went into making those conclusions. In effect, you are rejecting the entire body of scientific knowledge. The creationist arguments are therefore self-refuting.

Please try to understand what I am getting at. Science is our "window on reality." It seems to me that creationism is like looking through a shattered window. It totally distorts the image:

510

When creationists cite scientific results, they are implicitly accepting ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS that the scientist used to come to those results. If they reject any of the assumptions that the scientist made, then they cannot accept the conclusion.

Case in point: The timeline of the history of life on this planet is based on conclusions drawn from physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, geology, evolution, astronomy, and many other disciplines. If you reject those dates, you are bringing into question every fact from all those sciences that confirmed those dates.

If the foundation is destroyed, how can we proceed in this discourse? You can't cite any science because essentially all science contradicts your assumptions about creationism.

All the best,

Richard
Richard
I have not destroyed the foundation and have accepted a much longer time and that the fact that the earth is very old. If the earth is very old then maybe fossils also indicate they ate very old dirt which when absorbed into their systems made them appear older than they were. You say, science makes assumptions and that if I agree with the results, I have to agree with the assumptions. I do not think we have to agree with every assumption precisely when there is disagreement amongst scientists. Changing a few assumptions might lead us to the same conclusions.

Elsewhere you have admitted that the first cell could haved been created. I would have thought that most Evolutionists would not agree with you. You have now put yourself in juxtaposition with Creationists just as I have done the same with Evolutionists to get to some common understanding. Our rational thought might mean that combined we could both be correct. However, to have got to this position, of which we can never be certain, because we were not there at the beginning, we are both having to make assumptions.

I take it you have not abandonned this discussion by what you say in the last sentence and we stay on track to anwering the fundamental questions leading up to establishing that the simplest components of a living cell could have self-formed from molecules. We are trying to establish some evidence.

All the best,

David

CWH
07-07-2012, 02:36 AM
You still did not answer my question.

Why did those scientists think their experiment was good evidence for their conclusion?

And why do other scientists agree with them?

You also have not answer my question as to why many evolutionist scientists embrace creationism if the theory of evolution is so good.
The have been brainwashed by the false theiory of evolution.

My analogy of the making of computer virus show that there is no common descent. Imagine if Humans could create a sample DNA by just mixing the proteins that make up DNA we could create millions of new species of plants and animals instantly using the sample DNA and a computer program without the need for common descent or evolution. This is what we see DNAs of different species related to one another which we presumed must have descended from one another.

God Blessings to all.

CWH
07-07-2012, 04:27 AM
Here is an article about XNA, the synthetic DNA that could lead to new life forms. The keyword is SYNTHETIC which is man-made and do not occur in nature. This shows that life forms are created by someone or something intelligent by altering the DNAs:

XNA, Synthetic DNA, Could Lead To New Life Forms, Scientists Say
Posted: 04/20/2012 12:33 pm Updated: 04/20/2012 12:33 pm


Synthetic molecules resembling DNA can function and evolve just like the real thing, its developers say.

These new, unnatural building blocks could be more useful than DNA or its closely related biomolecule, RNA, in a variety of medical and biotechnology applications, researchers added. Other investigators noted they could even lead to novel forms of life.

DNA is essentially made of four different kinds of molecules known as nucleic acids, commonly referred to by their initials, A, G, C and T. These run along a backbone made of sugars and phosphate groups.

Scientists call their artificial nucleic-acidlike molecules XNA, in which the natural sugar component has been replaced by one of six alternative organic compounds. These XNA molecules all can bind to DNA and RNA.

The researchers also have developed enzymes that can synthesize XNA from a DNA template, plus others that can "reverse transcribe" XNA back into DNA. This means they can store and copy data just as DNA can — the basis of heredity for all life on Earth.

The investigators subjected an XNA molecule to artificial natural selection in the lab by introducing mutations into its genetic code. By allowing the different versions of the molecule to compete against each other for binding to another molecule, the team ended up with a shape that bound tightly and specifically to the target – just as one would expect of DNA under the same conditions. This makes XNA the only known molecules other than DNA and RNA capable of Darwinian evolution.


"Heredity — information storage and propagation — and evolution, two of the hallmarks of life, can be implemented in polymers other than DNA and RNA," researcher Philipp Holliger at the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, England, told InnovationNewsDaily.

One notable property of XNA molecules is they are not biodegradable: They are impervious to natural enzymes that degrade DNA and RNA. As such, they could find use in medical and biotechnology arenas where DNA and RNA could not go.

"People use RNA and DNA for biotechnology, therapeutics, diagnostics and biosensing applications, but these are very fragile in the face of biology — they degrade very rapidly if there's any contact with biological materials," said biochemist Gerald Joyce at the Scripps Research Institute, who did not take part in this work. "As such, chemists have to work to make them resistant to natural enzymes that degrade RNA and DNA, and then you have to worry about losing the good properties of those molecules. These XNAs, however, are resistant from the get-go."

These findings might also shed light on the origins of life — specifically, why DNA and RNA came to dominate Earth.

"It shows that there is no overwhelming functional imperative for life to use DNA and RNA for genetic information storage and propagation. More likely, this choice reflects a 'frozen accident' from the origin of life," Holliger suggested.

The construction of genetic systems based on alternative chemical platforms may ultimately lead to the synthesis of novel forms of life, if researchers can devise a system for XNA to replicate itself just as DNA has, Joyce said. However, he cautioned that synthetic biologists should take care to "not tread into areas that have the potential to harm our biology." For instance, the fact that XNA is not biodegradable suggests that life might not have any easy way of breaking it down.

"Do I think what these researchers have done is dangerous? Absolutely not. Do I think this is going to be dangerous in the near or even medium term? Absolutely not," Joyce said. "Still, are we treading into something risky here? It's synthetic biology, not a natural form of biology. Scientists have to pay attention here."

The scientists detailed their findings in the April 20 issue of the journal Science.

God Bless His Creations. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-07-2012, 08:11 AM
Here is an article about XNA, the synthetic DNA that could lead to new life forms. The keyword is SYNTHETIC which is man-made and do not occur in nature. This shows that life forms are created by someone or something intelligent by altering the DNAs:

Your logic is fallacious. The fact that man can make something does not mean it does not occur in nature. For example, we can create nuclear fusion. By your logic, that would mean that nuclear fusion cannot occur naturally in the sun.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-07-2012, 08:42 AM
Richard
I have not destroyed the foundation and have accepted a much longer time and that the fact that the earth is very old. If the earth is very old then maybe fossils also indicate they ate very old dirt which when absorbed into their systems made them appear older than they were. You say, science makes assumptions and that if I agree with the results, I have to agree with the assumptions. I do not think we have to agree with every assumption precisely when there is disagreement amongst scientists. Changing a few assumptions might lead us to the same conclusions.

Hey there David,

I think you may have missed an essential detail in my comment. I said that you have to "accept all the assumptions that the scientists used to come to those results." You don't have to accept all the assumptions that scientists didn't use to come to the conclusion you cited. They could have all sorts of assumptions that you have good reason to reject. That's fine. But if you accept one of their conclusions, you are implicitly accepting ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS that they used to come to that result. Do you understand this point?

Now you are correct that they might be able to come to the same conclusions with a different set of assumptions, but they didn't do that so your point is moot. My point stands. If you deny the assumptions used to come to a conclusion, you can not use the conclusion. Simple as that.



Elsewhere you have admitted that the first cell could haved been created. I would have thought that most Evolutionists would not agree with you. You have now put yourself in juxtaposition with Creationists just as I have done the same with Evolutionists to get to some common understanding. Our rational thought might mean that combined we could both be correct. However, to have got to this position, of which we can never be certain, because we were not there at the beginning, we are both having to make assumptions.

No evolutionist could deny the possibility that the first cell was created by God. Most would say that they don't believe it, but if they are logical they must admit that it is impossible to rule it out as a possibility because it goes beyond current scientific knowledge. This is why science can generally be trusted. It is confirmed by many witnesses (experiments, other scientists). Scientists understand and abide by logic and facts - such is their bread and butter. They are self-correcting, as you well know. The worst thing that could happen to a scientist is to be caught making false claims, fudging data, that kind of stuff. Scientists who willingly deceive are putting their careers in grave jeopardy. They know it would be foolish in the extreme since erroneous assumptions lead to error and error will always be exposed - that's the beauty and the power of science.

I very much like the idea of collaborating in the hopes of coming to a true estimation of reality. But there is a huge mountain of unfounded concepts that you take for granted which stands in our way. That's why I asked about the time line of life on this planet. That timeline is based o the collected results of the entire edifice of scientific evidence. It is "rock solid" if you know what I mean. Scientific consilience gives us great certainty of the general picture. Sure, there are almost certainly minor points here or there that will need to be refined, but the idea of a young earth is on the level of a "flat earth." Do you question that the earth is a globe? Of course not. Why not? Because of the sum of the scientific evidence. The same goes for the "old earth."



I take it you have not abandonned this discussion by what you say in the last sentence and we stay on track to anwering the fundamental questions leading up to establishing that the simplest components of a living cell could have self-formed from molecules. We are trying to establish some evidence.

All the best,

David
Yes, that topic seems very interesting indeed. I'll research more and report back as time permits.

All the very best to you my friend,

Richard

CWH
07-07-2012, 02:37 PM
Your logic is fallacious. The fact that man can make something does not mean it does not occur in nature. For example, we can create nuclear fusion. By your logic, that would mean that nuclear fusion cannot occur naturally in the sun.

The problem is that Nature discovered fusion energy way before humans and humans have to learn from Nature about fusion energy, magnetism, aerodynamics, electricity etc. So Nature actually have an upper hand in science.

God Bless Creations.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-07-2012, 04:55 PM
The problem is that Nature discovered fusion energy way before humans and humans have to learn from Nature about fusion energy, magnetism, aerodynamics, electricity etc. So Nature actually have an upper hand in science.

God Bless Creations.:pray:
That's illogical Cheow. Everyone knows that science learns from nature. That's the whole point of science. It is the opposite of dogmatic religion which denies reality (nature) in favor of dogmas they learned from books written by people who didn't know anything about reality.

You still have not answered my question. Let me ask it again: Can you tell me why those scientists concluded that all animals share a common ancestor? What evidence supported their conclusion? Can you answer this simple question?

Richard Amiel McGough
07-07-2012, 05:11 PM
No, there are evidence that this planet is not 3.8 billion years old. There are evidence that the dating technology used may be faulty as there are variations in the datings used by different technologies. Evidence of a young earth:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-young-world


Answers In Genesis? What a joke. Those folks don't know the first thing about science. I challenge you to find one scientist who has published his evidence that the earth is less than a billion years old in a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL. I seriously doubt you will find one because it would not pass peer review. But maybe I'm wrong. I haven't read all the science journals. So go find one. Just one. Come on Cheow - this is a challenge. Let's see if you can do it. Don't quote a creationist site. You have to find a real scientist who gives solid evidence that the earth is less than one billion years old in a peer reviewed scientific journal. I dare ya!




2) Do you believe this basic timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life) is correct in any way at all?
It's a human imagination same as people imagining cars evolved from bicyce and motorcycles. I could easily give a timeline of how cars evolve from the invention of wheels, carts, chariots, carriages etc.

You didn't understand my question. I didn't ask if you believed in evolution. I am asking if you believe in the EVIDENCE for evolution. Specifically, the evidence of the history of life on this planet that has been collected by thousands upon thousands of scientists and published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

If you reject all the EVIDENCE that is found in REALITY then you are rejecting reality itself. And this makes all your appeals to science utterly absurd since you reject all science.



And how do you account for life that remains unchanged for millions of years such as the horse shoe crab which shows that there is no such thing as less complex life evolving to more complex life. How do you explain the sudden change from one complex life to another such as from dinosaurs to mammals. The only explanation is that someone or something intelligent created them by altering their DNAs.

You are confused again Cheow. The fact that some forms are stable over long periods of time does not contradict evolution. Do you understand why? If not, then ask and I will explain. Or you can look it up yourself.

Who said the emergence of mammals was "sudden"? What do you mean by sudden? If you reject the 3.8 billion year timeline accepted by essentially all modern scientists, then what timeline are you using? Six thousand years? Do you agree that would be ridiculous?

So what is your estimate of the age of the earth and the timeline of life? Please share it with us so we can get free from all the delusions we learned in our science classes.

All the best,

Richard

CWH
07-07-2012, 07:18 PM
I have already answered your question... because they have already been brainwashed by the false theory of evolution during their school education.

I have already answered your question please answer mine:
If the theory of evolution is so good, why do many evolutionists turn creationists?
The other question which I wanted you to answer is :
Is it possible to create new life forms by tweaking the DNA codes? This is in reference to my thread on the XNA.

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47153#post47153

God Blessed.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-08-2012, 08:27 AM
Why did those scientists think their experiment was good evidence for their conclusion?

And why do other scientists agree with them?
I have already answered your question... because they have already been brainwashed by the false theory of evolution during their school education.

Hi Cheow,

I think you misunderstood the intent of my question. I was not asking you to speculate about the psychological or emotional motivation of the scientists. It doesn't matter if they did their experiment because they wanted to become famous evolutionists, or because they hated God, or because they were brainwashed. I asked you those questions because I wanted to know if you had any understanding about evolution at all. So please answer the questions. Let me reword them so you can understand.

What was the conclusion stated in the video?

What evidence did the scientists give to support their conclusion?

Is their conclusion supported by the evidence? If not, why not?

Thanks,

Richard

CWH
07-08-2012, 08:35 AM
Hi Cheow,

I think you misunderstood the intent of my question. I was not asking you to speculate about the psychological or emotional motivation of the scientists. It doesn't matter if they did their experiment because they wanted to become famous evolutionists, or because they hated God, or because they were brainwashed. I asked you those questions because I wanted to know if you had any understanding about evolution at all. So please answer the questions. Let me reword them so you can understand.

What was the conclusion stated in the video?

What evidence did the scientists give to support their conclusion?

Is their conclusion supported by the evidence? If not, why not?

Thanks,

Richard

I have already answered your question, so please have answer mine. Obviously, you are evading my questions. Here are the questions again:

If the theory of evolution is so good, why do many evolutionists turn creationists?

The other question which I wanted you to answer is :
Is it possible to create new life forms by tweaking the DNA codes? This is in reference to my thread on the XNA.


God Bless.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-08-2012, 08:37 AM
I have already answered your question, so please have answer mine.


Come on Cheow, don't pretend to be an idiot. We both know you did not answer my questions. Here they are again:

What was the conclusion stated in the video?

What evidence did the scientists give to support their conclusion?

Is their conclusion supported by the evidence? If not, why not?

CWH
07-08-2012, 08:45 AM
[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;47213]Come on Cheow, don't pretend to be an idiot. We both know you did not answer my questions. Here they are again:

What was the conclusion stated in the video?
There is no concrete proof of evolution.


What evidence did the scientists give to support their conclusion?
These are not proofs but assumptions.


Is their conclusion supported by the evidence? If not, why not?
What evidence? just assumptions based on weak evidences.

I have already answered your questions. Now please answer mine:

1. If the theory of evolution is so good, why do many evolutionists turn creationists?

2. Is it possible to create new life forms by tweaking the DNA codes? This is in reference to my thread on the XNA.

If you are not willing to answer mine and is trying to evade, then the interaction is closed. Thank you.


God Bless.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-08-2012, 10:13 AM
What was the conclusion stated in the video?
There is no concrete proof of evolution.

False. That is not the conclusion stated in the video.




What evidence did the scientists give to support their conclusion?
These are not proofs but assumptions.

Is their conclusion supported by the evidence? If not, why not?

What evidence? just assumptions based on weak evidences.

I have already answered your questions. Now please answer mine:

OK - so you are admitting that you did not understand a word of that video.

Thanks. It helps explain how folks could be creationists in spite of all the evidence that proves they are wrong. They simply don't understand what they are talking about. They are utterly, totally, and completely ignorant of the most basic facts of science.



1. If the theory of evolution is so good, why do many evolutionists turn creationists?

Your question is based on a false assumption. There are not "many evolutionists" who "turn creationists." Indeed, I don't know if there is even one!

I will answer your question if you can find five evolutionary scientists who have been published in peer reviewed journals and who later converted to creationism. That should be very easy if there are "many evolutionists" who have converted since there are thousands upon thousands of evolutionary scientists.

And please be true to your word. Don't list someone who started off as a creationist. You must list evolutionary scientists who were NOT creationist and then converted.

Happy hunting!

David M
07-08-2012, 03:13 PM
Hello Ricahrd

Hey there David,

I think you may have missed an essential detail in my comment. I said that you have to "accept all the assumptions that the scientists used to come to those results." You don't have to accept all the assumptions that scientists didn't use to come to the conclusion you cited. They could have all sorts of assumptions that you have good reason to reject. That's fine. But if you accept one of their conclusions, you are implicitly accepting ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS that they used to come to that result. Do you understand this point?

Now you are correct that they might be able to come to the same conclusions with a different set of assumptions, but they didn't do that so your point is moot. My point stands. If you deny the assumptions used to come to a conclusion, you can not use the conclusion. Simple as that.
OK. I must look at all the assumptions made. Since I do not know what all the asumptions are, you will have to give me a list of the assumptions made and what each assumption states. I will respond to each statement explaining the the respective assumption.




I very much like the idea of collaborating in the hopes of coming to a true estimation of reality. But there is a huge mountain of unfounded concepts that you take for granted which stands in our way. That's why I asked about the time line of life on this planet. That timeline is based o the collected results of the entire edifice of scientific evidence. It is "rock solid" if you know what I mean. Scientific consilience gives us great certainty of the general picture. Sure, there are almost certainly minor points here or there that will need to be refined, but the idea of a young earth is on the level of a "flat earth." Do you question that the earth is a globe? Of course not. Why not? Because of the sum of the scientific evidence. The same goes for the "old earth."
I have already stated in other threads that I can accept that the earth is very old. This might account for fossilized remains appearing old if they ate old dirt. If the dirt was 13 billion years old or 3 billion years old that would date the fossils at that age even though they are younger. My speculations allowed for creation over a very long timeline maybe with the exeption of man who was created quickly.

Once again I will have to be presented with all the assumptions made in presenting the conclusion for the age of plants and animals before agreeing dates.


Yes, that topic seems very interesting indeed. I'll research more and report back as time permits.
No rush. Take all the time you need.


David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-08-2012, 03:56 PM
Hello Ricahrd

OK. I must look at all the assumptions made. Since I do not know what all the asumptions are, you will have to give me a list of the assumptions made and what each assumption states. I will respond to each statement explaining the the respective assumption.

Good afternoon my friend! :yo:

The "list of assumptions" is simply the entire body of currently accepted scientific facts and theories that all scientists use when forming their conclusions. If there is any assumption that is not generally accepted, they always take note of it and carefully try to justify its use. I think this should be clear if we review my comment in post #19 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47134#post47134) from whence our discussion descended:

The reason I asked about your opinion of the basic timeline of the history of life on this planet was to find out if we shared any common understanding of science. It is very difficult to discuss science with creationists because they use scientific results inconsistently. When a conclusion suits the creationist argument, they cite it as if it were an indisputable scientific fact. When it contradicts creationism, they simply reject it making up whatever reasons are necessary. This is illogical because the conclusions that they accepted are based on the same set of assumptions that they reject! It is extremely confusing to talk to a creationist because I can never depend upon their acceptance of the facts that they used in coming to their conclusions!

The creationist strategy fails to understand the consilience of science - the unity of scientific knowledge. You can't arbitrarily pick and choose which conclusions you accept and which you don't. When you question the dates you are not merely questioning the dates, you are questioning all the assumptions (which are based on the best scientific facts available) that went into making those conclusions. In effect, you are rejecting the entire body of scientific knowledge. The creationist arguments are therefore self-refuting.

When creationists cite a scientific result that supposedly supports creationism contrary to the generally accepted results of the rest of science, they are obviously wrong about something! Do you understand my point? If not, please ask and I will explain more.

Also, you might want to ask yourself why the creationist arguments have been rejected by essentially all modern scientists. There's a reason for that you know. If creationist arguments had any scientific merit they could get publish in scientific journals. I am not even a working scientists but I can debunk 95% of all creationist arguments just by looking at them because they are generally abysmal.



I have already stated in other threads that I can accept that the earth is very old. This might account for fossilized remains appearing old if they ate old dirt. If the dirt was 13 billion years old or 3 billion years old that would date the fossils at that age even though they are younger. My speculations allowed for creation over a very long timeline maybe with the exeption of man who was created quickly.

It is good that we agree that the earth is old. But what age range do you accept? Do you think it is possible that the earth is as little as a 100,000 years old? A million? A billion? A simple statement of your best estimate would be helpful. And reasons why you reject the accepted age of 4.5 billion years would be even more helpful since it is based on a number of independent lines of evidence (which is much more difficult to reject).

And I would really like to know if you believe that the fossils are stratified, with simpler forms found in older rocks. Evolution could be falsified in a heartbeat if someone found rabbits in the Jurassic, you know? Remember the Cambrian explosion that creationists like to say proves design because of the many forms that appeared suddenly? Well, you don't see any rabbits down there, do ya? Why not? This proves the creationist assumption that all animals were created and lived at the same time is absolutely false. (As an aside, this shows that creationists must accept the old earth assumptions when they site any scientific conclusions about the Cambrian age.)

The fact that fossils are stratified is evidence of evolution.

I have no idea what you mean by the dinosaurs "eating old dirt" or how this could affect the age of their fossils. It would be best if we clarified our understanding of established science before making any speculations like that.

Great chatting!

Richard

David M
07-08-2012, 04:48 PM
When creationists cite a scientific result that supposedly supports creationism contrary to the generally accepted results of the rest of science, they are obviously wrong about something! Do you understand my point? If not, please ask and I will explain more.

It is good that we agree that the earth is old. But what age range do you accept? Do you think it is possible that the earth is as little as a 100,000 years old? A million? A billion? A simple statement of your best estimate would be helpful. And reasons why you reject the accepted age of 4.5 billion years would be even more helpful since it is based on a number of independent lines of evidence (which is much more difficult to reject)
I would perfer not to quote scientific results in support of Creation. There is the possibility that science has not got all the facts and there are facts that they are unaware of or that the rate of change is not linear or as predictable as they would have us believe. I shall go along with the age of the earth being millions of years old to begin with.


And I would really like to know if you believe that the fossils are stratified, with simpler forms found in older rocks. Evolution could be falsified in a heartbeat if someone found rabbits in the Jurassic, you know? Remember the Cambrian explosion that creationists like to say proves design because of the many forms that appeared suddenly? Well, you don't see any rabbits down there, do ya? Why not? This proves the creationist assumption that all animals were created and lived at the same time is absolutely false. (As an aside, this shows that creationists must accept the old earth assumptions when they site any scientific conclusions about the Cambrian age.)

The fact that fossils are stratified is evidence of evolution.
I might if it were not for the fact that the Great Flood can be seen to have caused the stratification. Water sloshing back and forward for up to a year would give rise to massive stratification of the mud layers. Experiment have been done to show this on a small scale. You only have to see what one Tsunami does to understand what happens when the equivalent of a Tsunami took place for up to weeks and months while the waters overflowed the earth. Stratification has it problems like the following, which you will have an explanation for.

Petrified Vertical Trees:
513
This is a fossil tree is supposedly extending through millions of years of strata. Think about that. Does that make sense.
How long does it take to form sedimentary layers? Charles Officer is a research professor at Dartmouth. In his 1996 book, The Great Dinosaur Extinction Mystery, he says, "...a rate of one centimeter per 1000 years is typical," p.56. But just look and think about this 30 foot fossil tree. It is one of hundreds found near Cookville, TN in the Kettles coal mines which derived their name from the shape of the lower portion of these fossil trees. This tree begins in one coal seam, protrudes upward through numerous layers and finally into another layer of coal.

Think about that. What would happen to the top of the tree in the thousands of years necessary to cover it at the rate postulated by Officer. Derek Ager, one of the world’s best known statigraphers, addresses this challenge, acknowledging "...standing trees up to 10 m high in the Lancashire coalfield of north-west England. ...Obviously sedimentation had to be very rapid to bury a tree in a standing position before it rotted and fell down. ...Standing trees are known at many levels and in many parts of the world. ...we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and that at other times there were long breaks in the sedimentation, though it looks uniform and continuous," The New Catastrophism, 1993, p.49.

In spite of how it looks, long periods of time are still claimed, "shoehorned" between the layers, where there is no evidence. Now, which is really better science...imaginative explanations about why things are not as they appear to be, or a determination to follow the implications of what we actually see?



I have no idea what you mean by the dinosaurs "eating old dirt" or how this could affect the age of their fossils. It would be best if we clarified our understanding of established science before making any speculations like that.
This is easy to understand. If the age of some dirt(food) contains isotopes by which the age of the dirt is calculated, then when that dirt is digested and becomes part of the living plant or animal that is later fossilized, the fossil is dated according to the age of the isotope. This means that a yound fossil could be dated as old.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-08-2012, 05:19 PM
I would perfer not to quote scientific results in support of Creation. There is the possibility that science has not got all the facts and there are facts that they are unaware of or that the rate of change is not linear or as predictable as they would have us believe. I shall go along with the age of the earth being millions of years old to begin with.

Thank you for letting me know the timescale you are willing to accept. But why would you choose "millions of years"? I don't know of any scientific evidence that would support that view. Do you?

I don't understand your comment that "would perfer not to quote scientific results in support of Creation." How then could you support any of your beliefs about Creation? Creationists base all their claims on science. That's the essence of the creationist argument. They say that they have better science than the evolutionary scientists.

And your assertion that "the possibility that science has not got all the facts" is like saying there is a possibility that water is wet. Everyone knows that science does not have "all the facts." That's not relevant to the discussion. The question is if creationists have any facts at all on their side.



I might if it were not for the fact that the Great Flood can be seen to have caused the stratification. Water sloshing back and forward for up to a year would give rise to massive stratification of the mud layers. Experiment have been done to show this on a small scale. You only have to see what one Tsunami does to understand what happens when the equivalent of a Tsunami took place for up to weeks and months while the waters overflowed the earth. Stratification has it problems like the following, which you will have an explanation for.

Oh my. So you are suggesting that all that mud "sloshing around" just happened to deposit trilobites in the earlier Cambrian layer and dinosaurs in the Jurassic layer? The mud had some sort of super-sorting power to mimic what we would expect from evolution? Come on man, that's doesn't make any sense at all.



This is a fossil tree is supposedly extending through millions of years of strata. Think about that. Does that make sense.

And you just believe this claim without any evidence because it fits your beliefs? Did you check what the real scientists have to say about it?



This is easy to understand. If the age of some dirt(food) contains isotopes by which the age of the dirt is calculated, then when that dirt is digested and becomes part of the living plant or animal that is later fossilized, the fossil is dated according to the age of the isotope. This means that a yound fossil could be dated as old.

Calling food "dirt" doesn't make any sense. That's why I was confused.

Have you read anything on the science of radiometric dating? Do you think that the scientists are so stupid that an average layman could refute their conclusions with such simplistic arguments as you are presuming to do?

Great chatting!

Richard

David M
07-08-2012, 06:25 PM
Today, 01:19 AMRichard Amiel McGough
Thank you for letting me know the timescale you are willing to accept. But why would you choose "millions of years"? I don't know of any scientific evidence that would support that view. Do you?
I don't trust all scientific conclusions and whilst I am skeptical about the accuracy of the dating I will just go with long periods. We can drop the millions and billions and just consider how evolution and creation might have gone hand in hand. I am trying to get another line of reasoning going and I am not going to fit in with the line you want to take and get me to agree the timeline in millions and billions of years. Either you wan to try and reason things out a different way or we stop now.


Today, 01:19 AMRichard Amiel McGough
I don't understand your comment that "would perfer not to quote scientific results in support of Creation." How then could you support any of your beliefs about Creation? Creationists base all their claims on science. That's the essence of the creationist argument. They say that they have better science than the evolutionary scientists. Please do not keep telling me about what other Creationists do. You dam Creationists if they use scientific results to suit there argument and I am dammed if I say I will not use the scientific data. I am trying to find a reason for the progression of life that might have a basis in creation and evolution. I can see how that God's creation took place over a long period of time.


Today, 01:19 AMRichard Amiel McGough
And your assertion that "the possibility that science has not got all the facts" is like saying there is a possibility that water is wet. Everyone knows that science does not have "all the facts." That's not relevant to the discussion. The question is if creationists have any facts at all on their side.
Its totally relevant if there are missing fact that scientists do not know what is missing. It is like you have a problem you when you don't know you have a problem.



Today, 01:19 AMRichard Amiel McGough
Oh my. So you are suggesting that all that mud "sloshing around" just happened to deposit trilobites in the earlier Cambrian layer and dinosaurs in the Jurassic layer? The mud had some sort of super-sorting power to mimic what we would expect from evolution? Come on man, that's doesn't make any sense at all.
Yes!! if you don't explain how the fossilzed tree goes through layers millions of years old.



Today, 01:19 AMRichard Amiel McGough
And you just believe this claim without any evidence because it fits your beliefs? Did you check what the real scientists have to say about it?
Not recently. However, you can explain it to me now.



Today, 01:19 AMRichard Amiel McGough
Calling food "dirt" doesn't make any sense. That's why I was confused.
Like we are not confused by what you say? "from dust(dirt) thou art and unto dust(dirt) thou shalt return".


Today, 01:19 AMRichard Amiel McGough
Have you read anything on the science of radiometric dating? Do you think that the scientists are so stupid that an average layman could refute their conclusions with such simplistic arguments as you are presuming to do?
Yes! Possibly. There is also a lot of inaccuracy in some of the dating methods. I remain skeptical and I will let you remove that skepticism by presenting me and this forum with proof of the reliability of the testing methods used when it comes to dating fossils and the age of the earth.


Over to you.

David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-09-2012, 12:00 PM
I don't trust all scientific conclusions and whilst I am skeptical about the accuracy of the dating I will just go with long periods. We can drop the millions and billions and just consider how evolution and creation might have gone hand in hand. I am trying to get another line of reasoning going and I am not going to fit in with the line you want to take and get me to agree the timeline in millions and billions of years. Either you wan to try and reason things out a different way or we stop now.

But why would you begin with the assumption that science is totally wrong about the age when their conclusions are based on the same scientific principles that are used to discover coal and oil and have given us computers, TVs, cars, and rockets to the moon? You trust science a lot more implicitly than you do explicitly. This suggests your standards are inconsistent. They change dedepending upon the result you are looking to find.

Evolution and creation might indeed go hand in hand. But if so, then creation would be discovered through the normal process of science, not by arbitrarily rejecting the parts of science that you think contradict your assumptions about creation.

Your skepticism towards established science is entirely inconsistent. You base it on your perception that scientific conclusions are constantly changing (improving) and ignore the problems with creationism that are a thousand times worse. Creationists disagree about the most fundamental teachings of the Bible. They can't agree if the earth is old or young. They can't agree if there was or was not animal death before Adam sinned. They cannot even agree about the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1! Their intepretations of the Bible are completely contradictory. Yet you think that you can have some sort of "certainty" from the Bible, and you reject science because it is contanstantly improving and becoming more and more precise and certain. It makes no sense at all.

The problem is with your methodology. You begin with a conclusion and then try to find facts to support it. That's entirely backwards. Science starts with facts from which it draws conclusions. Your error is that you are starting with an ancient pre-scientific text and trying to make science conform to it.



Please do not keep telling me about what other Creationists do. You dam Creationists if they use scientific results to suit there argument and I am dammed if I say I will not use the scientific data. I am trying to find a reason for the progression of life that might have a basis in creation and evolution. I can see how that God's creation took place over a long period of time.

I don't damn creationists when they use scientific results. I damn their deliberate misrepresentation of scientific facts in their effort to support their beliefs which are contradicted by real science.

I'm glad you believe in the "progression of life" but I don't know what you mean. When I speak of the progression of life, I'm talking about the evolution from simpler forms to more advanced forms. This is a proven fact - indeed, it is as solid as the facts of gravity and electromagnetism. It doesn't mean that God didn't do it. He could have sequentially created trilobites, dinosaurs, and rabbits. But if he did, it still looks exactly like what we would expect from evolution.



Its totally relevant if there are missing fact that scientists do not know what is missing. It is like you have a problem you when you don't know you have a problem.

You don't go around thinking that scientists have "missed something" about how to make computer chips or rocket ships. Your skepticism is not true skepticism. You are only skeptical about things that appear to contradict your dogmas. You are not skeptical about your dogmas at all.




Oh my. So you are suggesting that all that mud "sloshing around" just happened to deposit trilobites in the earlier Cambrian layer and dinosaurs in the Jurassic layer? The mud had some sort of super-sorting power to mimic what we would expect from evolution? Come on man, that's doesn't make any sense at all.
Yes!! if you don't explain how the fossilzed tree goes through layers millions of years old.

OK - we've isolated the source of your confusion. You think that the flood laid down trilobites in the Cambrian, dinosaours in the Jurassic, and rabbits in the Tertiary and that they all lived together at the same time. And the amazing magical flood with super-sorting powers also laid down trilobite tracks (http://www.trilobites.info/trace.htm) along with the trilobite fossils and dinosaur tracks (http://www.dinosite.org/) along with the dinosaur fossils? Your assumptions are utterly contrary to all science and rationality. How is it possible that you could suggest such an absurd theory?

514

And as for those fossil trees, how do you know that they grew through layers that were "millions of years old"? You don't. You simply believed what the creationists told you with no skepticism whatsover! Ten minutes on the internet would have given you plenty of reasons to doubt their assumptions and assertions.




And you just believe this claim without any evidence because it fits your beliefs? Did you check what the real scientists have to say about it?
Not recently. However, you can explain it to me now.

Why should I explain it? The information is available on the internet. If you were interested in the truth you could have easily found it yourself. The fact you didn't bother to check the facts before posting your "reason" for rejecting the entire body of modern science proves that you are trying to support a dogma rather than discover the truth.




Have you read anything on the science of radiometric dating? Do you think that the scientists are so stupid that an average layman could refute their conclusions with such simplistic arguments as you are presuming to do?
Yes! Possibly. There is also a lot of inaccuracy in some of the dating methods. I remain skeptical and I will let you remove that skepticism by presenting me and this forum with proof of the reliability of the testing methods used when it comes to dating fossils and the age of the earth.

Don't deceive yourself. You have given no evidence that your are "skeptical" about anything other than facts that contradicts your dogmas.




Over to you.

And back to you.

Richard

CWH
07-09-2012, 08:22 PM
There are more people who believe in creationism than in evolution, why? And why do people believe in the stupid theory of evolution? Here is the answer on why people believe in evolution:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/567-why-people-believe-in-evolution

Why People Believe in Evolution

BY WAYNE JACKSON
The most insidious and damaging ideology ever foisted upon the mind of modern man is the notion that human beings are but animals, and the offspring of other, more primitive creatures. It is known as the theory of organic evolution. This concept has been reflected in recent years in such volumes as Phil Donahue’s, The Human Animal (1986), and in the earlier production, The Naked Ape (1967), (as man was characterized) by zoologist, Desmond Morris.
Tragically, multiplied thousands across the land have ingested, to a greater or lesser degree (sometimes even with a religious flavor), this nefarious dogma. But why? Have folks intellectually analyzed the matter, and thus, on the basis of solid evidence and argument, accepted this viewpoint. Not at all; rather, for a variety of emotional reasons, this concept is entertained so readily.
In 1974, Marshall and Sandra Hall published a book titled, The Truth: God or Evolution? In the opening section of this excellent volume, the authors listed several reasons why the evolutionary theory is embraced by so many. With credit to them for the germ thoughts, I would like to expand the discussion.

Brainwashing
Since the issuance of Charles Darwin’s, The Origin of Species (1859), there has been a massive campaign to flood the “intellectual market” with evolutionary propaganda. Though such ideas by no means originated with Darwin, he popularized evolution more than anyone else. His book sold out (1,025 copies) the first day of its release.
Another significant milestone was the famous Scopes Trial, conducted in Dayton, Tennessee in July of 1925. Twenty-four year old John Thomas Scopes, a high school science teacher, had agreed to violate Tennessee’s Butler law, which forbade the teaching of any theory that holds man has descended from a lower form of life. The entire affair was “rigged,” but it brought together William Jennings Bryan (three-time Democratic nominee for president), who volunteered to represent the state, and the famed criminal defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, who defended Scopes. The trial, the first ever to be broadcast on radio, brought national attention to the issue of creation vs. evolution. As a result of that encounter, the concept of creationism was cast into an unfavorable light, and evolutionary dogma gained considerable respectability, albeit undeserved.
From that time, however, the theory of evolution has accelerated in influence via the media and the public school system. Today, there exists a determined campaign for the indoctrination of evolution, and millions have absorbed it into their minds.

Intimidation
Hand-in-hand with the brainwashing factor is the impact of intimidation. Supposedly, evolutionary doctrine has the endorsement of “science.” In 1966, H. J. Muller, a prominent geneticist, circulated a statement signed by 177 biologists. It asserted that evolution is a “scientific law” which is as firmly established as the rotundity of the earth.
Since most folks want to be thought of as “educated,” and as they have been led to believe that “all educated people believe in evolution,” they have defected to the Darwinian camp. Most of these individuals could not cite a solitary argument in defense of evolution; they simply believe it is fact because “the scientists say so.”
Informed people should know the following:

Evolution is not a scientific law.
Darwin’s “Theory” is actually an hypothesis that falls quite beyond the pale of the scientific method (observation, experimentation, and verification).

Scientific disagreement
There are numerous laws, e.g., the laws of thermodynamics, genetics, etc., which contradict evolutionary assertions.

Evolution is “pseudo-science”
Many scientists dispute that evolutionary dogma is true science. Evolutionist Robert Jastow, for example, has conceded that belief in the accidental origin of life is “an act of faith,” much, he says, like faith in the power of a Supreme Being (Until the Sun Dies, New York: Warner Books, 1977, p. 52).
Theodore N. Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist with the Atomic Energy Commission, has said:
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact … It is a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure jaggling … If evolution occurred at all, it was probably in a very different manner than the way it is now taught” (Fresno Bee, Aug. 20, 1959).
It is hardly necessary, therefore, to yield to the pressures of evolutionary brow-beating. We ought not to be cowed down; we should be more aggressive, demanding that those who affirm their confidence in evolution argue their case logically.

Religious Confusion
Some have been thrust toward evolutionary ideology because they are repelled by the confused (and sometimes cruel) state of the religious world. Religionists have sacrificed their own children in the name of “gods” (cf. Jer. 19:5). In the Far East the cobra is worshipped as deity. “Christians” (so-called) have warred with the devotees of Islam.
Catholics allege that the bread and wine of “the Eucharist” magically turn into the body and blood of Jesus, while Protestants insist that such does not occur. Some contend that “baptism” is administered only by immersion, while others allege that “sprinkling” or “aspersion” will suffice. A rather unique view suggests that it takes all three “modes” to constitute the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 (cf. Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, Peabody: MA: Hendrickson, 1998, p. 201).
This disunity has driven many to disenchantment with religion in general, which includes a rebellion against divine revelation. This, of course, is precisely what Jesus indicated. He admonished those who professed a loyalty to him to be “one,” that “the world might believe” (Jn. 17:20-21); the Lord thus implied that disunity would produce the opposite effect, i.e., unbelief.
But people need to realize that a departure from the original does not negate the genuineness of the original. The segmented status of “religiondom” does not authenticate evolution. The fact of the matter is, the evolutionists are as divided as the religionists.
For example, Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, contended that biological life evolved here on earth. On the other hand, Sir Fred Hoyle has argued that “spontaneous generation” occurred in outer space! Some Darwinians speculate that the evolutionary process has occurred quite gradually, over eons of time. Supposedly this explains the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Others (e.g., Richard Goldschmidt, and more recently, Stephen Gould of Harvard), suggest that evolution has proceeded rapidly, almost in snatches.
There is wholesale disagreement among the advocates of evolution. Those, therefore, who have fled from religion because of its disunity, have found no haven in Darwinism.

A World of Disorder
Many feel that our world environment, which is so characterized by brutality and suffering, is more consistent with Darwin’s tooth-and-claw, “survival-of-the-fittest,” principle, than it is with the notion that the earth is tended by a benevolent God. There might be some leverage in this argument if there were no other rational explanation for the ills of this globe.
But the fact is, a compelling case can be made for the proposition that life’s tragedies are the result of man’s rebellion against his Creator; and negative consequences have been allowed to follow as an educational process on behalf of the human family. In our recently published book, The Bible and Mental Health, we have an entire chapter chronicling some of the values of human affliction.
But here is another matter for consideration. While the believer has some basis for explaining the presence of “evil” in a fashion that is consistent with the existence of a powerful and benevolent God, the evolutionist has no reasonable explanation as to why there is a human sensitivity within man that judges some things to be “evil” and others “good.” How can a package of mere “matter,” which, according to atheism, is the sum of man, arrive at a rational, moral judgment concerning this phenomenon called “evil”? The problem of “evil” is more challenging for the evolutionist than for the creationist.

Tangible Evidence
Many folks are impressed with the evolutionary case because it is buttressed, they believe, with tangible evidence, whereas religion seems to partake of a dreamy, surreal environment. After all, scientists have “fossils” to prove their case, don’t they?
This argument is exceptionally deceptive for the following reasons:
All of the fossils ever collected represent less than 1% of the potential evidence, according to David Raup of Chicago’s Field Museum (Museum Bulletin, Jan., 1979, p. 50).
Not a single fossil has ever been discovered that clearly demonstrates a link between basic organism “kinds.”
All fossil evidence is subject to interpretation; and even evolutionists dispute the data.
For example, when Donald Johanson and his colleagues discovered the few bone fragments they dubbed “Lucy,” back in 1974, they alleged that this little creature walked on two legs, and was on-the-way to becoming human. Numerous evolutionists, however, seriously disputed this. We discussed this matter in considerable detail in the October, 1986 issue of the printed Christian Courier.
But Bible believers are not without “tangible” evidence in the defense of their case. Numerous archaeological discoveries have been made which support the historicity of the Scriptures (see our book, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology.
If, then, a general case can be made for the factual correctness of the Bible, one may reasonably conclude that its affirmations regarding the origin of humanity are correct as well.

Escape from Responsibility
Another reason why many so readily accept evolution as the explanation for mankind, is that such allows them to “cut loose” from God, and hence to be free from moral and religious obligations. They thus can become their own “gods,” and write their own rules. Richard Dawkins says that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (The Blind Watchmaker, New York: W.W. Norton, 1986, p. 6).
This viewpoint was vividly illustrated some years ago when Clarence Darrow spoke to the inmates of the Cook County jail in Chicago. Hear him.
“I do not believe there is any sort of distinction between the real moral conditions of the people in and out of jail. One is just as good as the other. The people here can no more help being here than the people outside can avoid being outside. I do not believe that people are in jail because they deserve to be. They are in jail simply because they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no way responsible” (Arthur Weinberg, Attorney For The Damned, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957, pp. 3-4; emp. WJ).
This shocking statement reveals the motive of some evolutionists.

Conclusion
People do not believe in evolution because they have been led there by solid evidence. They are stampeded into the Darwinian community by superficial, emotional, and personal factors. They only delude themselves when they think otherwise.

God Bless Creationism.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-09-2012, 11:41 PM
There are more people who believe in creationism than in evolution, why?

Two reasons:

1) They are ignorant of the science just like you (you know this is true, that's why you can't explain the best evidence for evolution).

2) They have been brainwashed and deceived by religious fundamentalists



And why do people believe in the stupid theory of evolution?

When you call evolution stupid, it reflects on you, not on evolution. The smartest people on the planet have developed that theory and you don't understand a word of it yet you call it "stupid." I really can't think of anything you could do that would make you look stupider.

David M
07-10-2012, 01:13 AM
Good morning Richard


But why would you begin with the assumption that science is totally wrong about the age when their conclusions are based on the same scientific principles that are used to discover coal and oil and have given us computers, TVs, cars, and rockets to the moon? You trust science a lot more implicitly than you do explicitly. This suggests your standards are inconsistent. They change dedepending upon the result you are looking to find.
I agree that the physical laws can be relied on which I do. If I accept creation of the universe, I can accept God (as the anwser to explain creation of anything in the universe) can cause events to happen at any time. You have already said science makes assumptions, and if I accept the results, I have to accept the assumptions. Science might not know all the events that happened which would affect the apparent age of the earth. I am being as object as possible and allowing for some error on the part of science. The fact that I am agreeing, at this stage, to the earth being "old" , should be enough.


Evolution and creation might indeed go hand in hand. But if so, then creation would be discovered through the normal process of science, not by arbitrarily rejecting the parts of science that you think contradict your assumptions about creation.
At the moment I am not rejecting anything and I am accepting a lot from your side to try and get to the bottom of this and try to find agreement with you. I suspect the ages calculated could have error, but this hardly alters the the processes we are trying to find out. I am saying evolution together with "steps in evolution recognized as creation events" could be the explanation we are seeking.


Your skepticism towards established science is entirely inconsistent. You base it on your perception that scientific conclusions are constantly changing (improving) and ignore the problems with creationism that are a thousand times worse. Creationists disagree about the most fundamental teachings of the Bible. They can't agree if the earth is old or young. They can't agree if there was or was not animal death before Adam sinned. They cannot even agree about the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1! Their intepretations of the Bible are completely contradictory. Yet you think that you can have some sort of "certainty" from the Bible, and you reject science because it is contanstantly improving and becoming more and more precise and certain. It makes no sense at all.
Stop telling me what other Creationists or Evolutionists thought. For the sake of discovery, let's reasons for ourselves and forget prejudices.


The problem is with your methodology. You begin with a conclusion and then try to find facts to support it. That's entirely backwards. Science starts with facts from which it draws conclusions. Your error is that you are starting with an ancient pre-scientific text and trying to make science conform to it.
A theorem has to be proved. One starts with a theorem and then sets about proving it. The same with theory. A theory is given by way of explanation; that theory then has to be proven. Evolution remains theory and so does Creation, until one or both are proven.


I don't damn creationists when they use scientific results. I damn their deliberate misrepresentation of scientific facts in their effort to support their beliefs which are contradicted by real science.
We can move on now that we know there have been Creationists and Evolutionists who have slanted the facts to make their case; such accused are to be ignored.


I'm glad you believe in the "progression of life" but I don't know what you mean. When I speak of the progression of life, I'm talking about the evolution from simpler forms to more advanced forms. This is a proven fact - indeed, it is as solid as the facts of gravity and electromagnetism. It doesn't mean that God didn't do it. He could have sequentially created trilobites, dinosaurs, and rabbits. But if he did, it still looks exactly like what we would expect from evolution.
Now you are beginning to see the point I have been making. This could have saved you needless words in reply to every statement I make. Let's examine what the steps are that make a Creationist say; "It must have been made" and that Evolution might not have explained satisfactorily (though to you they have).


You don't go around thinking that scientists have "missed something" about how to make computer chips or rocket ships. Your skepticism is not true skepticism. You are only skeptical about things that appear to contradict your dogmas. You are not skeptical about your dogmas at all.
What you call dogma is what I call "conculsion". We both have made our conclusions from what we have read and thought about. As long as re-examination of what we know leads us to the same conclusion, we hold on to that conclusion, until either we read something new or extra to affect our thinking and then our conclusions ought to change. I have my conclusions and they might not be set in stone (as you think) if new evidence comes along. At the moment, we have both formed our conclusions and therefore we both have dogmas.



OK - we've isolated the source of your confusion. You think that the flood laid down trilobites in the Cambrian, dinosaours in the Jurassic, and rabbits in the Tertiary and that they all lived together at the same time. And the amazing magical flood with super-sorting powers also laid down trilobite tracks (http://www.trilobites.info/trace.htm) along with the trilobite fossils and dinosaur tracks (http://www.dinosite.org/) along with the dinosaur fossils? Your assumptions are utterly contrary to all science and rationality. How is it possible that you could suggest such an absurd theory?

And as for those fossil trees, how do you know that they grew through layers that were "millions of years old"? You don't. You simply believed what the creationists told you with no skepticism whatsover! Ten minutes on the internet would have given you plenty of reasons to doubt their assumptions and assertions.

Whatever the flood did or did not do, I do not dismiss it without thought. I have to take into account the possibility it happened. I have to explain the anomalies found in layering. I am agreeing that the earth is "old". I am being as rational about everything as I can be.
I have pesented you with a picture of a fossilized tree which has to to be explained. The tree goes through layers representing millions of years (according to Evolution theory). I am not saying the trilobites etc were not already "old" nor had been created or evolved miilions of years before. I am saying fossilization of any living things must have occurred rapidly under certain conditions. If not, then the materials will rot and decay before they reach a fossilized state. If you do not accept the fact that fossilization must occur rapidly, you have to prove to me (by presenting the evidence (from the internet or wherever) that fossilization does not have to be rapid or take place under certain set conditions. Also, you have to explain how a fossilized tree came to be embedded in layers thought to have been laid down over millions of years. Have you seen the recent results of how waves of water cause layering of silt and how quickly the silt is laid down? I have asked you to think about waves far greater than any Tsunami we know of. Think about what thousands of Tsunamis would do to the earth in the time of the Great Flood within the time period of one year at most. I am taking on board all the facts I know and I am attempting to find an explanation; are you doing the same?

As for the part of your reply I have highlighted in red, I am bewildered by your assumption of what I am saying. You have stated the very fact that I am making about the tree; the tree did not grow through the fossilized layers; the tree was already fossilized when the layers were put down. It is evolution that states these layers were formed over millions of years. Layers and aging of fossils is or was circular reasoning. What is the age of the tree? If Evolution theory has changed and these layers do not represent millions of years of evolution, please give your explanation or the best explanation you can find, and present it to me before we move on. I don't have to go finding the evidence to support your case, that's your job.



Why should I explain it? The information is available on the internet. If you were interested in the truth you could have easily found it yourself. The fact you didn't bother to check the facts before posting your "reason" for rejecting the entire body of modern science proves that you are trying to support a dogma rather than discover the truth.
Check what facts? I am giving you reasons at the moment in the hope of getting to some mutual agreement. Skepticism about accuracy of dating is not an obstacle to explaining the course of events which took place on the earth. Now I am asking you to explain how the tree in the picture got to where where it was based on layering over millions of years, unless this theory is obsolete and I am using bogus information.


Don't deceive yourself. You have given no evidence that your are "skeptical" about anything other than facts that contradicts your dogmas.
I do not decieve myself anymore than I can say; "you are deceiving yourself". Stop saying things like this unless you want me to continue to throw them straight back at you. I am trying to stop this adversarial approach (hard as it is at times for us to stop).

Over, but not out.

David

Rose
07-10-2012, 10:39 AM
Petrified Vertical Trees:
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=513&d=1341791087
This is a fossil tree is supposedly extending through millions of years of strata. Think about that. Does that make sense.
How long does it take to form sedimentary layers? Charles Officer is a research professor at Dartmouth. In his 1996 book, The Great Dinosaur Extinction Mystery, he says, "...a rate of one centimeter per 1000 years is typical," p.56. But just look and think about this 30 foot fossil tree. It is one of hundreds found near Cookville, TN in the Kettles coal mines which derived their name from the shape of the lower portion of these fossil trees. This tree begins in one coal seam, protrudes upward through numerous layers and finally into another layer of coal.

Think about that. What would happen to the top of the tree in the thousands of years necessary to cover it at the rate postulated by Officer. Derek Ager, one of the world’s best known statigraphers, addresses this challenge, acknowledging "...standing trees up to 10 m high in the Lancashire coalfield of north-west England. ...Obviously sedimentation had to be very rapid to bury a tree in a standing position before it rotted and fell down. ...Standing trees are known at many levels and in many parts of the world. ...we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and that at other times there were long breaks in the sedimentation, though it looks uniform and continuous," The New Catastrophism, 1993, p.49.

In spite of how it looks, long periods of time are still claimed, "shoehorned" between the layers, where there is no evidence. Now, which is really better science...imaginative explanations about why things are not as they appear to be, or a determination to follow the implications of what we actually see?

Hi David,

There is a very good "Wiki" article on Polystrate fossils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil) which give a number of scientific reasons for upright fossilized tree trunks and stumps found worldwide, which is in direct opposition to what Charles Officer postulates. Here are some of the highlights.

"Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rift_%28geology%29) basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratovolcano). Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_delta) and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_tectonics), global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_margin) collapse, or some combination of these factors."


Fossil soils:

Geologists who have studied upright fossils found in sedimentary rocks exposed in various outcrops for the last 30 years have described the upright fossil trees as being deeply rooted in place and typically rooted in recognizable paleosols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleosol). This is in sharp contrast to the claims made by creationists such as Harold Coffin and N. A. Rupke. Geologists, such as Falcon and Rygel et al., have published detailed field sketches and pictures of upright tree fossils with intact root systems, which are rooted within recognizable paleosols. In case of the upright fossil trees of the Yellowstone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park) petrified forests, geologists – again in sharp disagreement with creationists like Harold Coffin – found that the upright fossil trees, except for relatively short stumps, are rooted in place within the underlying sediments. Typically, the sediments within which trees are rooted have paleosols developed within them. Either pictures or diagrams of the Yellowstone upright fossil trees having intact root systems developed within paleosols found within these strata have been published in Retallack (1981, 1997)

Formation by regeneration

Geologists have also found that some of the larger upright fossil trees found within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata show evidence of regeneration after being partially buried by sediments. In these cases, the trees were clearly alive when they were partially buried by sediments. The accumulated sediment was insufficient to kill the trees immediately because of their size. As a result, some of them developed a new set of roots from their trunks just below the new ground surface. Until they either died or were overwhelmed by the accumulating sediments, these trees would likely continue to regenerate by adding height and new roots with each increment of sediment, eventually leaving several meters of former "trunk" buried underground as sediments accumulated.

Holocene examples

According to scientists, polystrate fossils are just fossils which were buried in a relatively short time span either by one large depositional event or by several smaller ones. Geologists see no need to invoke a global flood to explain upright fossils. This position of geologists is supported by numerous examples, which have been found at numerous locations, of upright trees completely buried within either late Holocene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene) or historic sediments. These buried upright trees demonstrate that conventional geologic processes are capable of burying and preserving trees in an upright position such that in time, they will become fossilized.

Volcanic deposits

At this time, the best documented occurrences of unfossilized buried upright trees are found within historic and late Holocene volcanic deposits of Mount St. Helens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens), Skamania County, Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skamania_County,_Washington), and Mount Pinatubo, Philippines. At Mount St. Helens, both unfossilized and partially fossilized trees were observed in many outcrops of volcanic debris and mud flows (lahars) and pyroclastic flow deposits, which date from 1885 to over 30,000 BP., along the South Toutle and other rivers. Late Holocene forests of upright trees have also been observed as occurring within the volcanic deposits of other Cascade Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Range) volcanoes. In a few years after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo) in 1991, the erosion of loose pyroclastic deposits covering its slopes created a series of volcanic lahars, which ultimately buried large parts of the countryside along major streams draining these slopes beneath several meters of volcanic sediments. The repeated deposition of sediments by volcanic lahars and sediment filled rivers not only created innumerable polystrate trees, but also “polystrate” telephone poles, churches, and houses, over a period a few years. The volcanic deposits enclosing these modern upright trees are often virtually identical in their sedimentary structures, external and internal layering, texture, buried soils, and other general character to the volcanic deposits containing the Yellowstone buried forests. As in case of modern forests buried by lahars, the individual buried forests of the Yellowstone Petrified Forest and the layers containing them are very limited in their areal extent.

Deltaic deposits

Within excavations for Interstate Highway 10, borrow pits, landfills, and archaeological surveys, unfossilized upright trees have also been found buried within late Holocene, even historic, fluvial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluvial) and deltaic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_delta) sediments underlying the surface of the Mississippi River Delta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River_Delta) and the Atchafalaya Basin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchafalaya_Basin) of Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana). In one case, borrow pits dug in the natural levees of Bayou Teche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayou_Teche) near Patterson, Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson,_Louisiana), have exposed completely buried, 4 to 6-foot (1.2 to 1.8 meters) high, upright trunks of cypress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxodium) trees. Northeast of Donaldsonville, Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donaldsonville,_Louisiana), a borrow pit excavated for fill used to maintain nearby artificial levees, exposed three levels of rooted upright tree trunks stacked on top of each other lying completely buried beneath the surface of Point Houmas, a patch of floodplain lying within a meander loop of the current course of the Mississippi River.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-22)[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-23) While searching for buried archaeological sites, archaeologists excavated a 12 ft (3.6 meter) high upright rooted cypress tree completely buried within a natural levee of the Atchafalaya River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchafalaya_River) within the Indian Bayou Wildlife Management Area just south of Krotz Springs, Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krotz_Springs,_Louisiana). Radiocarbon dates and historic documents collected for this archaeological survey, during which this and other upright trees were found, of the Indian Bayou Wildlife Management Area demonstrated that these upright trees were buried in the 1800s, during the initial diversion of Mississippi River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River)'s flow into the Atchafalaya River.

Glacial deposits

Unfossilized, late Pleistocene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene) upright trees have been found buried beneath glacial deposits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_deposit) within North America along the southern edge of the Laurentide ice sheet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet). These buried forests were created when the southern edge of the Laurentide ice sheet locally dammed valleys. As a result, meltwater lakes filled these valleys and submerged forests within them. Sediments released by the melting of the adjacent ice sheet rapidly filled these lakes, which quickly buried and preserved the submerged forests lying within them. One forest of in situ, 24,000 year-old unfossilized upright trees was exposed by excavations for a quarry near Charleston, Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston,_Illinois). Excavations for a tailings pond about Marquette, Michigan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquette,_Michigan), exposed an in situ forest of unfossilized trees, which are about 10,000 years old, buried in glacial lake and stream sediments.

David M
07-10-2012, 11:48 AM
Hi David,

There is a very good "Wiki" article on Polystrate fossils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil) which give a number of scientific reasons for upright fossilized tree trunks and stumps found worldwide, which is in direct opposition to what Charles Officer postulates. Here are some of the highlights.

"Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rift_%28geology%29) basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratovolcano). Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_delta) and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_tectonics), global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_margin) collapse, or some combination of these factors."

Thank you Rose or the Wikipedia article. There will be all sorts of example of various fossilized trees found in different locations, many of which will have straightforward explanations. The tree in the example I posted shows a fossilized tree extending from one strata of coal into another strata of coal at a different level. This is strange and would show the tree must be very old if the coal laid down is as old as the dating methods would show.
In other cases, for tall vertical trees to be covered by sedimentation must have taken place in a relatively short period of time (not necessarily in as little time of the Flood) but for these trees to have been covered by sedimentation cannot have taken millions of years as the dating process would say.

It is all very interesting, even if we have gone off topic of the Simple Cell, so I will say no more on the subject for now.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-10-2012, 12:58 PM
Good morning Richard

I agree that the physical laws can be relied on which I do. If I accept creation of the universe, I can accept God (as the anwser to explain creation of anything in the universe) can cause events to happen at any time. You have already said science makes assumptions, and if I accept the results, I have to accept the assumptions. Science might not know all the events that happened which would affect the apparent age of the earth. I am being as object as possible and allowing for some error on the part of science. The fact that I am agreeing, at this stage, to the earth being "old" , should be enough.

Good morning my friend,

I'm glad you are trying to be objective, but I do not believe you have succeeded yet. Your uncritical acceptance of unfounded creationist arguments makes that pretty clear. You showed no skepticism at all for the creationist claims about the fossil trees. Rose showed those claims were debunked a long time ago. So why do you show no skepticism towards the creationist claims that are easily refuted even as you show extreme prejudicial skepticism against established science based on logic and facts? It doesn't make sense.



At the moment I am not rejecting anything and I am accepting a lot from your side to try and get to the bottom of this and try to find agreement with you. I suspect the ages calculated could have error, but this hardly alters the the processes we are trying to find out. I am saying evolution together with "steps in evolution recognized as creation events" could be the explanation we are seeking.

I very much appreciate your efforts, and I think we are making good progress towards establishing a foundation of agreement. This makes the conversation very worthwhile. Thanks!

As for the precise length of the ages, that's not the issue of primary concern. The most important fact for you to consider is the stratification of the fossils. These are the "bedrock facts" that strongly support the theory of evolution. This is why it is critical for us to come to some kind of agreement. Do you agree that trilobites lived and went extinct a long time before dinosaurs and that dinosaurs lived and went extinct a long time before rabbits? This is what the fossil evidence says, and I don't know of any possible refutation of these facts. Do you? If so, please present it. If not, please give some sort of reason why you would even think to question the evidence.




Your skepticism towards established science is entirely inconsistent. You base it on your perception that scientific conclusions are constantly changing (improving) and ignore the problems with creationism that are a thousand times worse. Creationists disagree about the most fundamental teachings of the Bible. They can't agree if the earth is old or young. They can't agree if there was or was not animal death before Adam sinned. They cannot even agree about the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1! Their interpretations of the Bible are completely contradictory. Yet you think that you can have some sort of "certainty" from the Bible, and you reject science because it is constantly improving and becoming more and more precise and certain. It makes no sense at all.
Stop telling me what other Creationists or Evolutionists thought. For the sake of discovery, let's reasons for ourselves and forget prejudices.

You are the one who presented the erroneous creationist argument about the fossil trees, so if you want me to stop bringing them up, you will need to first follow your own advice.

And you are the one who criticized science as unreliable because it "changes" so I had very good reason to remind you that believing the Bible is no better since everyone has a different interpretation of it. How can you fault me for simply pointing out this fact? It has nothing to do with "prejudice" - I showed by counter-example that your complaints against science are unwarranted because there are much bigger problems with the shifting sand of your position, namely Bible interpretation.




The problem is with your methodology. You begin with a conclusion and then try to find facts to support it. That's entirely backwards. Science starts with facts from which it draws conclusions. Your error is that you are starting with an ancient pre-scientific text and trying to make science conform to it.
A theorem has to be proved. One starts with a theorem and then sets about proving it. The same with theory. A theory is given by way of explanation; that theory then has to be proven. Evolution remains theory and so does Creation, until one or both are proven.

Your assertion that "evolution is a theory" demonstrates a complete lack of understanding what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. Unfortunately, this is an exceedingly common creationist error. It is almost the sin qua non of a creationist. Is the Theory of Electromagnetism "just a theory"? Is the Theory of Gravity "just a theory"? Of course not. In a scientific context, the word "theory" denotes the set of principles that are used to explain and predict a set of facts. A scientific theory is tested by how well it is able to explain and predict observable facts. If the explanation requires a lot of ad hoc modifications, scientists begin to doubt if it is true. If it make predictions that contradict what we observe, it is rejected as false or incomplete. That's what "theory" means in science.

Now that you understand the meaning of "theory" in a scientific context, it should be obvious why Creationism is not a science in any way at all. What are the "principles" of the "theory of creationism" that explain and predict phenomena? I know of none. The only "explanation" that creationism gives is "God did it." And creationism makes no testable predictions at all. Creationism is not a scientific theory by any stretch of the definition.

But what if God really did create the universe? Is it not possible that science could conclude such a fact from the evidence? It is indeed possible. Suppose in a thousand years we have developed a total and complete theory of everything supported by ten trillion observations, and that no doubt remains about the validity of the science. Suppose also that we could use our super-science to prove that certain phenomena like the origin of our universe and the origin of life could not proceed through purely natural law. Then you'd have your proof. But still, you wouldn't have "creation science." There is no such thing. There is only SCIENCE. If it is true that God created the universe, that would just be a conclusion drawn from SCIENCE. It is absurd to pretend that there is some "other kind" of science called "creation science."




I don't damn creationists when they use scientific results. I damn their deliberate misrepresentation of scientific facts in their effort to support their beliefs which are contradicted by real science.
We can move on now that we know there have been Creationists and Evolutionists who have slanted the facts to make their case; such accused are to be ignored.

I cannot let your false equating of Evolution with Creationism pass without comment. As noted above, there is no such thing as "creation science." They don't even have any "theory" at all and Creationists have generally proven themselves to be enemies of science and reality. They often willfully misrepresent facts and then fail to correct themselves when proven wrong so that there errors persist and continue to mislead gullible people who don't check the facts because they are not skeptical. The fact that some unscrupulous people have hoaxed science (e.g. Piltdown man) only demonstrates how science is superior to creationism because it was the scientists themselves who found and corrected the errors.




I'm glad you believe in the "progression of life" but I don't know what you mean. When I speak of the progression of life, I'm talking about the evolution from simpler forms to more advanced forms. This is a proven fact - indeed, it is as solid as the facts of gravity and electromagnetism. It doesn't mean that God didn't do it. He could have sequentially created trilobites, dinosaurs, and rabbits. But if he did, it still looks exactly like what we would expect from evolution.
Now you are beginning to see the point I have been making. This could have saved you needless words in reply to every statement I make. Let's examine what the steps are that make a Creationist say; "It must have been made" and that Evolution might not have explained satisfactorily (though to you they have).

I'm not aware of any "needless words." Everything I have written was in response to serious misunderstandings and erroneous assertions in your posts.

It is not relevant to entertain the creationist claims that "it must have been made" before we have come to an agreement about the established facts. That's why it is necessary to come to agreement about the basic facts of the fossil record. You suggested that the trilobites and the dinosaurs and the rabbits all lived together and that the flood somehow sorted the fossil record to make it look like the trilobites lived long before the dinosaurs and the dinosaurs lived long before the rabbits. I gave solid evidence refuting your explanation. So where now do we stand? Do you still have reason to doubt the basic sequence that shows simpler organisms preceded the more complex? This is a critical point because these are the facts that theory of evolution seeks to explain.



What you call dogma is what I call "conculsion". We both have made our conclusions from what we have read and thought about. As long as re-examination of what we know leads us to the same conclusion, we hold on to that conclusion, until either we read something new or extra to affect our thinking and then our conclusions ought to change. I have my conclusions and they might not be set in stone (as you think) if new evidence comes along. At the moment, we have both formed our conclusions and therefore we both have dogmas.

I'm glad your "conclusions" are not set in stone. But your comments don't ring true to my ear because there is a world of difference between dogmas based on a religious book and conclusions drawn from scientific facts.



Whatever the flood did or did not do, I do not dismiss it without thought. I have to take into account the possibility it happened. I have to explain the anomalies found in layering. I am agreeing that the earth is "old". I am being as rational about everything as I can be.

I have pesented you with a picture of a fossilized tree which has to to be explained. The tree goes through layers representing millions of years (according to Evolution theory).

I'm not asking you to dismiss anything "without thought." On the contrary, I am strongly encouraging you to think about these things from a truly skeptical point of view.

Case in point: You uncritically accepted the false creationist assertion that the tree "goes through layers representing millions of years (according to Evolution theory)." Evolutionists do not say that the layers surrounding the fossilized trees were laid down over periods of millions of years. You would have known this if you had simply checked the facts which would only have taken a few minutes on the internet. You showed no skepticism of any kind for the creationist claims even though they contradicted established scientific facts.

It seems you don't appreciate the nature of the scientific mind. Anomalies are like thorns in the scientists' mind. They constantly irritate the scientific mind because the scientific mind wants to know how things really work, and any anomaly is an indication that something is missing from the theory. Anomalies are the primary drivers of scientific discovery. Just before the turn of the 20th century, physicists thought they had pretty much wrapped up the complete theory of Physics. There was nothing much left to do but explain a few "anomalies" like the problem of black body radiation. It was this anomaly that led to Quantum Theory which overthrew Newton's Classical Mechanics. This is why good scientists never dismiss or ignore anomalies. History has shown they are the key to discovery.



I am not saying the trilobites etc were not already "old" nor had been created or evolved miilions of years before. I am saying fossilization of any living things must have occurred rapidly under certain conditions. If not, then the materials will rot and decay before they reach a fossilized state. If you do not accept the fact that fossilization must occur rapidly, you have to prove to me (by presenting the evidence (from the internet or wherever) that fossilization does not have to be rapid or take place under certain set conditions.

The speed of fossilization has nothing to do with our discussion. You had argued that the flood sorted the fossils into strata. That was the issue you were addressing. That is the issue that is relevant. The stratification of the fossils is primary "rock solid evidence" (in a most literal sense!) that the Theory of Evolution explains.



Also, you have to explain how a fossilized tree came to be embedded in layers thought to have been laid down over millions of years.

Who says those layers are "thought to have been laid down over millions of years"? You have cited no scientific literature. Nothing but claims from a creationist. Please do your homework and present some real scientific facts for us to discuss.



Have you seen the recent results of how waves of water cause layering of silt and how quickly the silt is laid down? I have asked you to think about waves far greater than any Tsunami we know of. Think about what thousands of Tsunamis would do to the earth in the time of the Great Flood within the time period of one year at most. I am taking on board all the facts I know and I am attempting to find an explanation; are you doing the same?

If there were evidence for a global flood, then you would present evidence rather than speculations. We have direct proof that there was no global flood in the last 750,000 years from the ice cores taken from the poles:
To pry climate clues out of the ice, scientists began to drill long cores out of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica in the late 1960s. By the time Alley and the GISP2 project finished in the early 1990s, they had pulled a nearly 2-mile-long core (3,053.44 meters) from the Greenland ice sheet, providing a record of at least the past 110,000 years. Even older records going back about 750,000 years have come out of Antarctica.

And there are many other kinds of evidence that prove there was no global flood like that described in the Bible.





And as for those fossil trees, how do you know that they grew through layers that were "millions of years old"? You don't. You simply believed what the creationists told you with no skepticism whatsover! Ten minutes on the internet would have given you plenty of reasons to doubt their assumptions and assertions.
As for the part of your reply I have highlighted in red, I am bewildered by your assumption of what I am saying. You have stated the very fact that I am making about the tree; the tree did not grow through the fossilized layers; the tree was already fossilized when the layers were put down.

The tree was not "already fossilized when the layers were put down." The living tree was buried while still standing, then it and the material that buried it were all fossilized together. Just read Rose's article and you will understand.



It is evolution that states these layers were formed over millions of years. Layers and aging of fossils is or was circular reasoning. What is the age of the tree? If Evolution theory has changed and these layers do not represent millions of years of evolution, please give your explanation or the best explanation you can find, and present it to me before we move on. I don't have to go finding the evidence to support your case, that's your job.

Evolution says no such thing. Have you quoted a single scientist concerning those fossil trees? Nope. All you did was quote on creationist who didn't even understand the most basic elements of science (judging from what he wrote).

I've already given my explanation. The real question is why didn't you check the facts before posting creationist claims that have been long refuted?




Why should I explain it? The information is available on the internet. If you were interested in the truth you could have easily found it yourself. The fact you didn't bother to check the facts before posting your "reason" for rejecting the entire body of modern science proves that you are trying to support a dogma rather than discover the truth.
Check what facts? I am giving you reasons at the moment in the hope of getting to some mutual agreement. Skepticism about accuracy of dating is not an obstacle to explaining the course of events which took place on the earth. Now I am asking you to explain how the tree in the picture got to where where it was based on layering over millions of years, unless this theory is obsolete and I am using bogus information.

Check what facts? How about the false assertion that evolutionists assert the trees pass through layers that were laid down over millions of years? That would be a good place to start. Go find an evolutionist who makes that claim.

And yes, you are using bogus information provided by a creationist. That should have been your first clue.




Don't deceive yourself. You have given no evidence that your are "skeptical" about anything other than facts that contradicts your dogmas.
I do not decieve myself anymore than I can say; "you are deceiving yourself". Stop saying things like this unless you want me to continue to throw them straight back at you. I am trying to stop this adversarial approach (hard as it is at times for us to stop).

I'm sorry if my comment offended. It was not meant that way. But read what I wrote. Do you understand why I said what I said? Was my comment justified? Have you shown any skepticism towards the creationist claims that you have posted? You showed no skepticism at all. My comment, therefore, is fully justified and you could never legitimately "throw it straight back at me" because I am not committing the same error. But on that note, I would be absolutely delighted if you stated any errors in my posts with the same degree of directness. The "wounds of a friend" you know? :winking0071:



Over, but not out.

Ditto!

Rose
07-10-2012, 01:48 PM
Thank you Rose or the Wikipedia article. There will be all sorts of example of various fossilized trees found in different locations, many of which will have straightforward explanations. The tree in the example I posted shows a fossilized tree extending from one strata of coal into another strata of coal at a different level. This is strange and would show the tree must be very old if the coal laid down is as old as the dating methods would show.
In other cases, for tall vertical trees to be covered by sedimentation must have taken place in a relatively short period of time (not necessarily in as little time of the Flood) but for these trees to have been covered by sedimentation cannot have taken millions of years as the dating process would say.

It is all very interesting, even if we have gone off topic of the Simple Cell, so I will say no more on the subject for now.

All the best,

David

Hi David,

When studying the fossilized trees it doesn't matter how many different layers of strata that the trunk of the tree goes through, but rather it is the Paleosol that the roots are found in.


Paleosols are soils which were formed during periods of very slow or no accumulation of sediments. Later, renewed sedimentation buried these soils to create paleosols. These paleosols are identified on the basis of the presence of structures and microstructures unique to soils; animal burrows and molds of plant roots of various sizes and types; recognizable soil profile development; and alteration of minerals by soil processes. In many cases, these paleosols are virtually identical to modern soils.




Rose

David M
07-10-2012, 05:34 PM
Good morning my friend,

I'm glad you are trying to be objective, but I do not believe you have succeeded yet. Your uncritical acceptance of unfounded creationist arguments makes that pretty clear. You showed no skepticism at all for the creationist claims about the fossil trees. Rose showed those claims were debunked a long time ago. So why do you show no skepticism towards the creationist claims that are easily refuted even as you show extreme prejudicial skepticism against established science based on logic and facts? It doesn't make sense.


I very much appreciate your efforts, and I think we are making good progress towards establishing a foundation of agreement. This makes the conversation very worthwhile. Thanks!

As for the precise length of the ages, that's not the issue of primary concern. The most important fact for you to consider is the stratification of the fossils. These are the "bedrock facts" that strongly support the theory of evolution. This is why it is critical for us to come to some kind of agreement. Do you agree that trilobites lived and went extinct a long time before dinosaurs and that dinosaurs lived and went extinct a long time before rabbits? This is what the fossil evidence says, and I don't know of any possible refutation of these facts. Do you? If so, please present it. If not, please give some sort of reason why you would even think to question the evidence.


You are the one who presented the erroneous creationist argument about the fossil trees, so if you want me to stop bringing them up, you will need to first follow your own advice.

And you are the one who criticized science as unreliable because it "changes" so I had very good reason to remind you that believing the Bible is no better since everyone has a different interpretation of it. How can you fault me for simply pointing out this fact? It has nothing to do with "prejudice" - I showed by counter-example that your complaints against science are unwarranted because there are much bigger problems with the shifting sand of your position, namely Bible interpretation.


Your assertion that "evolution is a theory" demonstrates a complete lack of understanding what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. Unfortunately, this is an exceedingly common creationist error. It is almost the sin qua non of a creationist. Is the Theory of Electromagnetism "just a theory"? Is the Theory of Gravity "just a theory"? Of course not. In a scientific context, the word "theory" denotes the set of principles that are used to explain and predict a set of facts. A scientific theory is tested by how well it is able to explain and predict observable facts. If the explanation requires a lot of ad hoc modifications, scientists begin to doubt if it is true. If it make predictions that contradict what we observe, it is rejected as false or incomplete. That's what "theory" means in science.

Now that you understand the meaning of "theory" in a scientific context, it should be obvious why Creationism is not a science in any way at all. What are the "principles" of the "theory of creationism" that explain and predict phenomena? I know of none. The only "explanation" that creationism gives is "God did it." And creationism makes no testable predictions at all. Creationism is not a scientific theory by any stretch of the definition.

But what if God really did create the universe? Is it not possible that science could conclude such a fact from the evidence? It is indeed possible. Suppose in a thousand years we have developed a total and complete theory of everything supported by ten trillion observations, and that no doubt remains about the validity of the science. Suppose also that we could use our super-science to prove that certain phenomena like the origin of our universe and the origin of life could not proceed through purely natural law. Then you'd have your proof. But still, you wouldn't have "creation science." There is no such thing. There is only SCIENCE. If it is true that God created the universe, that would just be a conclusion drawn from SCIENCE. It is absurd to pretend that there is some "other kind" of science called "creation science."


I cannot let your false equating of Evolution with Creationism pass without comment. As noted above, there is no such thing as "creation science." They don't even have any "theory" at all and Creationists have generally proven themselves to be enemies of science and reality. They often willfully misrepresent facts and then fail to correct themselves when proven wrong so that there errors persist and continue to mislead gullible people who don't check the facts because they are not skeptical. The fact that some unscrupulous people have hoaxed science (e.g. Piltdown man) only demonstrates how science is superior to creationism because it was the scientists themselves who found and corrected the errors.


I'm not aware of any "needless words." Everything I have written was in response to serious misunderstandings and erroneous assertions in your posts.

It is not relevant to entertain the creationist claims that "it must have been made" before we have come to an agreement about the established facts. That's why it is necessary to come to agreement about the basic facts of the fossil record. You suggested that the trilobites and the dinosaurs and the rabbits all lived together and that the flood somehow sorted the fossil record to make it look like the trilobites lived long before the dinosaurs and the dinosaurs lived long before the rabbits. I gave solid evidence refuting your explanation. So where now do we stand? Do you still have reason to doubt the basic sequence that shows simpler organisms preceded the more complex? This is a critical point because these are the facts that theory of evolution seeks to explain.


I'm glad your "conclusions" are not set in stone. But your comments don't ring true to my ear because there is a world of difference between dogmas based on a religious book and conclusions drawn from scientific facts.


I'm not asking you to dismiss anything "without thought." On the contrary, I am strongly encouraging you to think about these things from a truly skeptical point of view.

Case in point: You uncritically accepted the false creationist assertion that the tree "goes through layers representing millions of years (according to Evolution theory)." Evolutionists do not say that the layers surrounding the fossilized trees were laid down over periods of millions of years. You would have known this if you had simply checked the facts which would only have taken a few minutes on the internet. You showed no skepticism of any kind for the creationist claims even though they contradicted established scientific facts.

It seems you don't appreciate the nature of the scientific mind. Anomalies are like thorns in the scientists' mind. They constantly irritate the scientific mind because the scientific mind wants to know how things really work, and any anomaly is an indication that something is missing from the theory. Anomalies are the primary drivers of scientific discovery. Just before the turn of the 20th century, physicists thought they had pretty much wrapped up the complete theory of Physics. There was nothing much left to do but explain a few "anomalies" like the problem of black body radiation. It was this anomaly that led to Quantum Theory which overthrew Newton's Classical Mechanics. This is why good scientists never dismiss or ignore anomalies. History has shown they are the key to discovery.


The speed of fossilization has nothing to do with our discussion. You had argued that the flood sorted the fossils into strata. That was the issue you were addressing. That is the issue that is relevant. The stratification of the fossils is primary "rock solid evidence" (in a most literal sense!) that the Theory of Evolution explains.


Who says those layers are "thought to have been laid down over millions of years"? You have cited no scientific literature. Nothing but claims from a creationist. Please do your homework and present some real scientific facts for us to discuss.


If there were evidence for a global flood, then you would present evidence rather than speculations. We have direct proof that there was no global flood in the last 750,000 years from the ice cores taken from the poles:
To pry climate clues out of the ice, scientists began to drill long cores out of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica in the late 1960s. By the time Alley and the GISP2 project finished in the early 1990s, they had pulled a nearly 2-mile-long core (3,053.44 meters) from the Greenland ice sheet, providing a record of at least the past 110,000 years. Even older records going back about 750,000 years have come out of Antarctica.

And there are many other kinds of evidence that prove there was no global flood like that described in the Bible.


The tree was not "already fossilized when the layers were put down." The living tree was buried while still standing, then it and the material that buried it were all fossilized together. Just read Rose's article and you will understand.


Evolution says no such thing. Have you quoted a single scientist concerning those fossil trees? Nope. All you did was quote on creationist who didn't even understand the most basic elements of science (judging from what he wrote).

I've already given my explanation. The real question is why didn't you check the facts before posting creationist claims that have been long refuted?


Check what facts? How about the false assertion that evolutionists assert the trees pass through layers that were laid down over millions of years? That would be a good place to start. Go find an evolutionist who makes that claim.

And yes, you are using bogus information provided by a creationist. That should have been your first clue.


I'm sorry if my comment offended. It was not meant that way. But read what I wrote. Do you understand why I said what I said? Was my comment justified? Have you shown any skepticism towards the creationist claims that you have posted? You showed no skepticism at all. My comment, therefore, is fully justified and you could never legitimately "throw it straight back at me" because I am not committing the same error. But on that note, I would be absolutely delighted if you stated any errors in my posts with the same degree of directness. The "wounds of a friend" you know? :winking0071:


Ditto!

Richard
It is obvious from what you are saying, that you want me to be skeptical about everything Creationist have ever said and not be skeptical about one Evolutionist claim. That is a non-starter. I am being as objective as I can be about everything. You want me to ignore layering which from what I read and come to know about Evolution, is or was a major reason for the dating the earth and dating the fossils in the layers. If this has changed, you could haved updated me, but no, you want to bang on about what Creationists have done and lump me in with them; I am not supporting all Creationist ideas. You have not explained the fossilized tree to me and Rose has given me a Wikipedia article, half of which is about unfossilized trees.

Now, I think that we have no basis for continuing this discussion which started out discussing the Simple Cell. You have not attempted to answer my genuine questions and enlighten me. Just because I am not fitting in completely with Evolution (as you understand it), I am the one at fault and anything that I present which Creationists have presented in the past, is held against me. I am sorry, but I am not pursuing this thread any further. I thought this thread would be a line of reasoning and discovery in which you would be providing answers. Instead it is just another war of words. I was hoping to having a sensible discussion for once, which would not lead to the type of discussion this has developed into. I see no hope of ever getting past this in future conversations; they will always come to this. It is sheer madness to continue this any further. It is a shame we got off topic, but this is the end of this thread for me.


Ten-four, over and out.

David

David M
07-10-2012, 05:46 PM
Hi David,

When studying the fossilized trees it doesn't matter how many different layers of strata that the trunk of the tree goes through, but rather it is the Paleosol that the roots are found in.


Paleosols are soils which were formed during periods of very slow or no accumulation of sediments. Later, renewed sedimentation buried these soils to create paleosols. These paleosols are identified on the basis of the presence of structures and microstructures unique to soils; animal burrows and molds of plant roots of various sizes and types; recognizable soil profile development; and alteration of minerals by soil processes. In many cases, these paleosols are virtually identical to modern soils.




Rose

Hello Rose

When reading that article in Wikipedia (half of which was to do with unfossilized trees), I followed the link to paleosols to find out about them. I do not see where this fits in with explaining the speed or time over which the layers built up. Did the layers form over a very long time or were the layers caused quickly by flooding of some description? I just want a simple explanation which neither the article in Wikipedia or you have given me. We could discuss what the different layers are made from and give some sort of explanation to their individual thicknesses and whether those thicknesses built up quickly or slowly and what caused the layering. I guess we have come to the end of this discussion, as I have just quit the discussion with Richard in this thread. We got off topic anyway.


All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-10-2012, 10:24 PM
Richard
It is obvious from what you are saying, that you want me to be skeptical about everything Creationist have ever said and not be skeptical about one Evolutionist claim. That is a non-starter. I am being as objective as I can be about everything. You want me to ignore layering which from what I read and come to know about Evolution, is or was a major reason for the dating the earth and dating the fossils in the layers. If this has changed, you could haved updated me, but no, you want to bang on about what Creationists have done and lump me in with them; I am not supporting all Creationist ideas. You have not explained the fossilized tree to me and Rose has given me a Wikipedia article, half of which is about unfossilized trees.

Good evening David,

I can't tell you how much I value our interaction. I really hope we can continue because we are on the threshold of an authentic breakthrough.

There are some serious misunderstandings in your comments. I do not want you to be "skeptical about everything Creationist have ever said and not be skeptical about one Evolutionist claim." The truth is that I don't want you to accept any claims without checking the facts no matter who makes them. The problem is that you have shown extreme skepticism towards established science and no skepticism whatsoever for the ridiculous fringe creationist claim that you cited. You simply went looking for a reason to be "skeptical" of the established science and grabbed the first creationist claim that you thought fit the bill. You did not check the facts. You did not check how established science answers the creationist claim. That is not the path to truth. The first step is to understand the science. Only then will you have sufficient knowledge to judge if the fringe claims made by those who deny mainstream science have any validity.

Your assertion that I want you to "ignore layering which from what I read and come to know about Evolution, is or was a major reason for the dating the earth and dating the fossils in the layers" is a total misunderstanding. I never said any such thing. On the contrary, I want you to pay close attention to the layering, and to understand that in the cases of the fossilized trees it was laid down quickly. This is obvious because otherwise the tree would have rotted. The creationist lied to you when he said that the "fossil tree is supposedly extending through millions of years of strata." That is the false claim that you uncritically accepted. There is not one geologist on the planet who would assert that. It is ridiculous beyond description. It is a perverse lie made up by creationists to deceive gullible Christians who do not check the facts. The truth is just the opposite. The truth is that mainstream geologists have no trouble understanding the fossil trees. The layers were obviously laid down very quickly. This is common knowledge. It was stated over and over again in the second paragraph of the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil) that Rose cited for you called Geological Explanation:
In geology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology), such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_%28sediment%29) favor their formation.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-DiMichele.2B2011a-1)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-Gastaldo2004a-3) Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rift_%28geology%29) basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratovolcano). Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_delta) and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_tectonics), global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_margin) collapse, or some combination of these factors.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-Gastaldo2004a-3) For example, geologists such as John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have argued that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joggins,_Nova_Scotia) was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull apart basin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pull_apart_basin), and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-Waldron.2B2005a-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-Waldron.2B2005b-5) The specific layers containing polystrate fossils occupy only a very limited fraction of the total area of any of these basins.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-Waldron.2B2005a-4)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-6)

As you can see, the creationist claim about what geologists say directly contradicts what geologists really say! He has absolutely no excuse for asserting such a blatant falsehood. It was not a simple misunderstanding. He lied. This scientific explanation of the polystrate fossil trees has existed since the NINETEENTH CENTURY [source (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html)]!



You have not attempted to answer my genuine questions and enlighten me. Just because I am not fitting in completely with Evolution (as you understand it), I am the one at fault and anything that I present which Creationists have presented in the past, is held against me.

David, that simply is not true. I have tried with all my might to help you understand. But you keep throwing creationist wrenches into the gears. At this point of your education, you should begin with mainstream science and learn what the great minds (including many Christian creationists) have discovered in the last four hundred years. Here's a brief history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale) from the wiki (note that the flood theory was popular in the 18th century):



The principles underlying geologic (geological) time scales were later laid down by Nicholas Steno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Steno) in the late 17th century. Steno argued that rock layers (or strata) are laid down in succession, and that each represents a "slice" of time. He also formulated the law of superposition, which states that any given stratum is probably older than those above it and younger than those below it. While Steno's principles were simple, applying them to real rocks proved complex. Over the course of the 18th century geologists realized that:


Sequences of strata were often eroded, distorted, tilted, or even inverted after deposition;
Strata laid down at the same time in different areas could have entirely different appearances;
The strata of any given area represented only part of the Earth's long history.

The first serious attempts to formulate a geological time scale that could be applied anywhere on Earth were made in the late 18th century. The most influential of those early attempts (championed by Abraham Werner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Werner), among others) divided the rocks of the Earth's crust into four types: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Quaternary. Each type of rock, according to the theory, formed during a specific period in Earth history. It was thus possible to speak of a "Tertiary Period" as well as of "Tertiary Rocks." Indeed, "Tertiary" (now Paleocene - Pliocene) and "Quaternary" (now Pleistocene and Holocene) remained in use as names of geological periods well into the 20th century.

The Neptunist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptunist) theories popular at this time (expounded by Werner) proposed that all rocks had precipitated out of a single enormous flood. A major shift in thinking came when James Hutton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hutton) presented his Theory of the Earth; or, an Investigation of the Laws Observable in the Composition, Dissolution, and Restoration of Land Upon the Globe before the Royal Society of Edinburgh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_of_Edinburgh) in March and April 1785. It has been said that "as things appear from the perspective of the 20th century, James Hutton in those reading became the founder of modern geology"[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale#cite_note-9) Hutton proposed that the interior of the Earth was hot, and that this heat was the engine which drove the creation of new rock: land was eroded by air and water and deposited as layers in the sea; heat then consolidated the sediment into stone, and uplifted it into new lands. This theory was dubbed "Plutonist" in contrast to the flood-oriented theory.

The identification of strata by the fossils they contained, pioneered by William Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Smith_%28geologist%29), Georges Cuvier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Cuvier), Jean d'Omalius d'Halloy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Julien_d%27Omalius_d%27Halloy), and Alexandre Brogniart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Brogniart) in the early 19th century, enabled geologists to divide Earth history more precisely. It also enabled them to correlate strata across national (or even continental) boundaries. If two strata (however distant in space or different in composition) contained the same fossils, chances were good that they had been laid down at the same time. Detailed studies between 1820 and 1850 of the strata and fossils of Europe produced the sequence of geological periods still used today.

As you can see, the theory of the geological ages has been developed and tested by countless scientists over the span of centuries, and most importantly, the sequence of geological periods was well established before 1859 when Darwin published the Origin of Species. This shows that the motivation had nothing to do with the theory of evolution (since it didn't even exist during the formative stages).



I am sorry, but I am not pursuing this thread any further. I thought this thread would be a line of reasoning and discovery in which you would be providing answers. Instead it is just another war of words.

I would be very sad if you quit this discussion but if you feel you must, then so be it. But you cannot say that it is because we are in a "war of words." No such thing is going on here. On the contrary, the "war" has moved to the realm of verifiable facts.



I was hoping to having a sensible discussion for once, which would not lead to the type of discussion this has developed into. I see no hope of ever getting past this in future conversations; they will always come to this. It is sheer madness to continue this any further. It is a shame we got off topic, but this is the end of this thread for me.

I'm very sorry to hear you say that since I firmly believe we have had a very reasonable discussion - except for common misunderstandings and creationist wrenches that have seriously confused you about the facts of science.



Ten-four, over and out.

I hope not. We are on the threshold of a genuine breakthrough. We've covered a lot of territory. You now have enough information to understand that the fossils are stratified and that this is the primary evidence for evolution. And this is but one of the many rock solid lines of scientific evidence supporting the theory.

But if you want to take a break, that's fine. Perhaps it is best to let all these facts sink in.

All the very best to you my friend,

Richard

David M
07-13-2012, 01:16 AM
OK Richard, since you have given me a long reply and given me something to think about, I am hoping too that you will think more about what I am saying before leaping to conclusions and replying with a lot of uneccesary words. I know you are writing 50 times more than what I write and because I do not a have a load of prepared material or references to material I can call upon, it takes me time to prepare my replies and in so doing I am thinking about these things as I write. I have slept on your reply and had time to consider how to reply and it is not going to respond to every comment you have made in your last reply. I think it time for you to appreciate what I have been saying and which I endorse again here. So the following is to help you understand where I am at and I am not expecting you to respond to my every comment.

I am conceding a lot in order to get to the bottom of this subject if evolution and creation, and I accept what has been found, and what we can see, has to be explained, whether by creation, evolution or a combination of both. We can forget actual dates and dating methods for the moment, it really makes no difference at this point in time for the purposes of trying to find a sequence that involves creative steps plus long periods of time in which God is progressively created new species, even new features such as a complex eye, but then this is linked in with the development of the brain, so the two have to go hand in hand. What man is trying to say is all evolution without God, I am beginning to think that God’s creative steps are evidenced in the fossil record. Some of God’s creative steps might not have succeeded and some died off. All I will say for the moment is that God produced things that were in the end;perfect. Based on progressive steps until perfect, God progressed His designs from simple life forms up to massive Dynosaurs. So whilst this creative process continued along the lines Evolutionists are finding out, there is scope for step changes to explain why Evolutionists say there is a link, but cannot prove. I am suggesting that the unproven links are as a result of creative steps introduced by God. With that concept, we can get back on track for the moment and concentrate on the evolution/creation of the first simple cell. Is it possible for the simplest component of the simplest cell to self-form.? At this stage, I am not ruling anything out and you should do the same.

In the example of the 30 foot tree extending from one coal strata to another coal strata, we are agreed that fossilization has to take place quickly. Are we agreed that coal is made from deposits of vegetation (trees etc.)? So did that picture of the tree I gave, represent a lower layer of vegetation built up around the tree, then a washing of sediment many feet thick on top, followed by another layer of vegetation several feet thick, and on top of all this another layer of sedimentation? Then the whole lot must have been fossilized at the same time. If this is the case, everything shown in that photograph must date around the same time. If this is proven to be the case, it would tend to lead to a catastrophic situation similar to the Great Flood. It has been shown in laboratory conditions that coal can be made quickly. I am not ruling out observations in geology that indicate massive water erosion taking place quickly, instead of millions of years. The Grand Canyon is a geological phenomena, which I find the Evolution explanation over millions of years, hard to accept. I could never accept that the narrow river at the bottom of the canyon was the cause for cutting through so many layers of rock/sediment over milliuons of years and the canyon being so wide at the top. Something else must have happened for the Grand Canyon to be as it is.

Since we were not there when any of this took place, let’s keep speculating on everything until we can rule some things out. Even now, scientists having found the Higgs particle might say there is something else they have to find. We still have no explanation for the beginning and what unifies everything. If as Einstein says, mass converts to energy, does it convert to a single form of energy, or is there an energy we do not know about and Einstein’s equation might have to be modified to allow for more than one energy type? If there is only one energy type, then everything has come from one source. We could say that this energy source is God. So, if all mass has come from a single energy type and source, it makes sense to say that all matter, however small, must be linked and linked back in some way to that energy source. If that link is a creative process, then we have the "God" factor, which can never be sought out by man. Either man will find an explanation for how an atom is made including its constituent parts (all made from a single energy source), or else, it remains a mystery, and that mystery can only be explained by the term ‘God’.
For the purposes of this discussion on the simplest cell, we are accepting that atoms exist, whether created, or formed on their own. We are trying to build a case for the simplest cell starting from atoms and molecules to self-form, or conlcude that a creative step must have been involved.

Incidentally, I am reading your other posts when I have time. I know I will miss a lot, but from one post I noted this;

I agree that the Bible is a LIVING BOOK written by the living God.
I do not want a long discussion about this in this thread. I need time to get my head round this in light of everything else you have been saying about God and agreeing with Rose that the Bible is written by man and God is no more than the tribal bronze-age warrior god written about by man. If you really believe what you have said in that quote, I think it is imperative you get to grips with the goodness and severity of the God of the Bible. Just this evening, I was reading Isaiah 66 and it is evident throughout the Book of Isaiah, God pleads with His people to repent. God does not want to punish them, even though they are guilty of abominable acts. God wants them to sincerely repent. God is just and God is true to His word and unless there is repentance, some form of punishment must be expected. God is calling us all to repent; it is our fault if we do not, and we are on the receiving end of God's punishment. Even a child of God expects to receive correction and punishment in a mild form. God knows what is best for us, if only we will listen to Him and we respect Him as the Creator who made us.

I have come to accept the acts of God, which seem horrible to us, as punishment from God who is just; especially after God calls everyone to repentance and tells them to stop their abominable acts.. The Canaanites knew of the God of Israel and the stories of what God had done for the Israelites. God's reputation went before Him. Did the Canaanites show any repentance? No! That is why God saw them as reprobates and gave them up and they were dispensable. Getting rid of the Canaanites sooner, so as not to be a snare to Israel, was not to stop Israel being snared later; it was to stop them being snared sooner. It was inevitable that Israel would fail God, and do the abominable acts they did, for which they were punished later and to a different degree to that of the killing the Canaanites. This should have served as a lesson to anyone who witnessed it, or like us, are reading of those events now; we should see the lessons God is giving us. For all that God did, by way of punishment in the past (or to come on the nations in the future), it pales into insignificance compared to the love and mercy He shows to those who repent and turn to Him. God will save those who are repentant and He will give them eternal life in a glorious kingdom to come. All this is not worth losing for the sake of not understanding how God was just in what He did to the Canaanites and others. I might wish God had done it another way, but that is based on my weak human reasoning and my weak human emotions. I have come to accept from my reading of God’s word, how God just and how He is controlling events that suit His purpose, and God is far wiser than we give Him the credit for.

So now, let’s get back on track and we will discuss these matters and other things as we progress in other threads. If you believe in a "living God", you must also accept the creative process that could have taken place within the Evolutionary theory you are holding onto. I am doing the same with Creation; I am holding on to Creation and yet accepting that I can see how God did not create everything in a short period of time. Just as with men and women, some are described as "cracked vessels" and God will discard them. We can apply the same principle to God’s creative process leading up the pinnacle of Creation; man. Whereas I see man was created quickly after God had created everything through a creative process resembling and incorporating evolution/adaptation over a long period of time, we can see how some of the things God created died off and would not have progressed. I am looking at God creating the simplest forms of life first and with the passage of time, creating ever more complex creatures (and plants) leading up to dinosaurs that have since died out and maybe the Flood caused. (I am not ruling anything out at this stage).

I hope this gives you a little better insight into what I have been saying in other threads as well as this one. I know you are corresponding with a lot of people on this forum and cannot possibly understand them all or me, whereas I have only to try and understand you and Rose and that is not easy. You have not given up the concept of God, only the God of the Bible demoting Him to a bible-god. As long as other people think the same as me about the nature of God, despite our differences in interpretation and doctrine, and accept the God of the Bible is just and have come to terms with the goodness and severity of God, I will hold on the God of the Bible. Without God, none of us have anything to look forward to; no future life, no hope. It is not as though God has not given us the evidence on which to base our hope of a future life on earth in His kingdom.

All the best Richard; you do not have to reply to everything I have said in this post, just hold on to what I have said, so that you know where I am coming from and that I am not taking the way of all Creationists as you perceive all of them to be. This is why for the sake of our discussions, I want you to drop the lectures about Creationists. We must reason everything out and bring everything to the table that we believe might be what happened and see how we can get the best fit. Who knows, we might find a way of resolving Evolution and Creation that will go against traditional views. If what we conclude is correct, that would mean both taditional Evolutionists and Creationists would have to change their understanding and that might be too difficult for them to do. All that has been found and all that can be seen must have an explanation; we just have to find it. "God" is the simplest of all answers; to the trusting to those with a non-academic or super intelligent mind. God does not require us to be super intellligent to understand what He requires of us. To believe in God means we have to accept that God can create and has done so at time and in some way. Not to believe in God, only leaves Evolution as the explanation. If you believe in a god (God) Richard, then you have to accept the possibility of both creation and evolution could have took place at the same time, with God in control and overseeing the process.

Kind regards

David

CWH
07-13-2012, 08:33 AM
:confused:Splicing a 500-Million-Year-Old Gene Into Modern Bacteria
Scientists watch evolution at work

Ancient Genes, Modern Life Using a process called paleo-experimental evolution, Georgia Tech researchers have resurrected a 500-million-year-old gene from bacteria and inserted it into modern-day E. coli bacteria. This bacterium has now been growing for more than 1,000 generations. Georgia Tech
We are still waiting with bated breath for the day scientists resurrect the woolly mammoth. Until then, we’ll have to satisfy ourselves with resurrections of ancient plants and bacteria — which may be more amazing anyway, because they're even older. The dish in the above image holds a bacterium with a 500 million-year-old gene in it. That’s an era just a little while after the Cambrian explosion, when life became complex.

This story starts back in 2008, when Georgia Tech researchers figured out the ancient sequence of a gene called Elongation Factor-Tu (EF-Tu), which is found in all cellular life. Bacteria need it to survive, so its ancient version presents an interesting window into genetic evolution. Betül Kaçar, a astrobiology postdoctoral fellow in Georgia Tech’s NASA Center for Ribosomal Origins and Evolution, figured out where this ancient gene would go on modern E. coli chromosomes and in which sequence. Then Kaçar produced eight identical strains of E. coli with this old gene.

The chimeric version grew about twice as slowly as its modern counterpart, according to a news release from Georgia Tech. This was good news for evolutionary biologists who wanted to see what would happen next. Would life evolve like it already had over 500 million years, or would it take a different tack this time?
“This is as close as we can get to rewinding and replaying the molecular tape of life,” Kaçar said.

She and her colleagues allowed the bacteria to grow for 500 generations, and watched as their growth rates gradually increased. Eventually, some of them were even better off than their modern, unaltered cousins. Kaçar sequenced the offspring bacteria’s genomes to figure out how they adapted. It turns out the gene didn’t mutate to look more like its modern self — instead, the proteins that interact with this gene changed. Evolution took a different path this time.

This is interesting because evolutionary scientists want to know whether natural selection always leads to a single outcome, or whether nature can provide several solutions to a specific problem. This suggests it’s the latter, and that mother nature can be creative. The team plans to continue studying future E. coli generations to see if the protein will adapt in other new ways.

http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2012-07/500-million-year-old-gene-grows-modern-bacteria

No mutation at all from a 500 million year old gene instilled in a bacteria. Where is the proof of evolution? Why is it necessary for human to do that and not naturally?

One can deduce is the theory is believable or not by the number of critics. There are much fewer critics on the theory of Gravity and almost no critic on the theory of combustion sows that the theory is believable, But there are so many critics for the theory of Evolution, surely should make one suspect that there many things wrong with the theory. I don't see why one would want to deceive people on the theory of creationism and intelligent design, what gain would they get? What they probably want is to seek the truth to answer many doubts they find in the theory of Evolution.

Wishing all God Blessings.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-13-2012, 04:26 PM
:confused:Splicing a 500-Million-Year-Old Gene Into Modern Bacteria
Scientists watch evolution at work

Ancient Genes, Modern Life Using a process called paleo-experimental evolution, Georgia Tech researchers have resurrected a 500-million-year-old gene from bacteria and inserted it into modern-day E. coli bacteria. This bacterium has now been growing for more than 1,000 generations. Georgia Tech
We are still waiting with bated breath for the day scientists resurrect the woolly mammoth. Until then, we’ll have to satisfy ourselves with resurrections of ancient plants and bacteria — which may be more amazing anyway, because they're even older. The dish in the above image holds a bacterium with a 500 million-year-old gene in it. That’s an era just a little while after the Cambrian explosion, when life became complex.

This story starts back in 2008, when Georgia Tech researchers figured out the ancient sequence of a gene called Elongation Factor-Tu (EF-Tu), which is found in all cellular life. Bacteria need it to survive, so its ancient version presents an interesting window into genetic evolution. Betül Kaçar, a astrobiology postdoctoral fellow in Georgia Tech’s NASA Center for Ribosomal Origins and Evolution, figured out where this ancient gene would go on modern E. coli chromosomes and in which sequence. Then Kaçar produced eight identical strains of E. coli with this old gene.

The chimeric version grew about twice as slowly as its modern counterpart, according to a news release from Georgia Tech. This was good news for evolutionary biologists who wanted to see what would happen next. Would life evolve like it already had over 500 million years, or would it take a different tack this time?
“This is as close as we can get to rewinding and replaying the molecular tape of life,” Kaçar said.

She and her colleagues allowed the bacteria to grow for 500 generations, and watched as their growth rates gradually increased. Eventually, some of them were even better off than their modern, unaltered cousins. Kaçar sequenced the offspring bacteria’s genomes to figure out how they adapted. It turns out the gene didn’t mutate to look more like its modern self — instead, the proteins that interact with this gene changed. Evolution took a different path this time.

This is interesting because evolutionary scientists want to know whether natural selection always leads to a single outcome, or whether nature can provide several solutions to a specific problem. This suggests it’s the latter, and that mother nature can be creative. The team plans to continue studying future E. coli generations to see if the protein will adapt in other new ways.

http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2012-07/500-million-year-old-gene-grows-modern-bacteria

No mutation at all from a 500 million year old gene instilled in a bacteria. Where is the proof of evolution? Why is it necessary for human to do that and not naturally?

One can deduce is the theory is believable or not by the number of critics. There are much fewer critics on the theory of Gravity and almost no critic on the theory of combustion sows that the theory is believable, But there are so many critics for the theory of Evolution, surely should make one suspect that there many things wrong with the theory. I don't see why one would want to deceive people on the theory of creationism and intelligent design, what gain would they get? What they probably want is to seek the truth to answer many doubts they find in the theory of Evolution.

Wishing all God Blessings.:pray:
Didn't you even read the article you copied? It is titled "Watching evolution at work"! Why did you title your post "No evidence for evolution"? It's totally insane to post evidence for evolution as if it were evidence against it.

Your comments only prove yet again that you are utterly ignorant of the science of evolution. Your assertion that there is "no evidence for evolution" is the most blatant falsehood that anyone could utter. It would be fine if you had a reason to challenge some of the evidence, but to assert that there is no evidence is just as stupid as saying the earth is flat.

Your argument that you can evaluate the validity of a theory by counting the number of critics fails on three points. First, it is a false test. A true theory could have many critics. There are many examples of this in the history of science (e.g. plate tectonics). Second, your premise is false. There are very, very few qualified scientists who reject evolution. Third, you must look at the motivation of the critics. In the case of evolution, essentially all critics are utterly ignorant of the science, just like you. They are driven by nothing but blind religious dogma.

Why do you keep posting things that you don't understand? And why don't you refute my demonstration that the creationists who made that video you posted were liars, frauds, and deceivers? You write like you are a Cleverbot.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-13-2012, 05:25 PM
OK Richard, since you have given me a long reply and given me something to think about, I am hoping too that you will think more about what I am saying before leaping to conclusions and replying with a lot of uneccesary words. I know you are writing 50 times more than what I write and because I do not a have a load of prepared material or references to material I can call upon, it takes me time to prepare my replies and in so doing I am thinking about these things as I write. I have slept on your reply and had time to consider how to reply and it is not going to respond to every comment you have made in your last reply. I think it time for you to appreciate what I have been saying and which I endorse again here. So the following is to help you understand where I am at and I am not expecting you to respond to my every comment.

Hey there David,

I really appreciate all the effort you put into these conversations with me. And I'm glad you took time to "sleep on it" rather than rushing to answer. I think we are making a lot of progress.



I am conceding a lot in order to get to the bottom of this subject if evolution and creation, and I accept what has been found, and what we can see, has to be explained, whether by creation, evolution or a combination of both. We can forget actual dates and dating methods for the moment, it really makes no difference at this point in time for the purposes of trying to find a sequence that involves creative steps plus long periods of time in which God is progressively created new species, even new features such as a complex eye, but then this is linked in with the development of the brain, so the two have to go hand in hand. What man is trying to say is all evolution without God, I am beginning to think that God’s creative steps are evidenced in the fossil record. Some of God’s creative steps might not have succeeded and some died off. All I will say for the moment is that God produced things that were in the end;perfect. Based on progressive steps until perfect, God progressed His designs from simple life forms up to massive Dynosaurs. So whilst this creative process continued along the lines Evolutionists are finding out, there is scope for step changes to explain why Evolutionists say there is a link, but cannot prove. I am suggesting that the unproven links are as a result of creative steps introduced by God. With that concept, we can get back on track for the moment and concentrate on the evolution/creation of the first simple cell. Is it possible for the simplest component of the simplest cell to self-form.? At this stage, I am not ruling anything out and you should do the same.

That's a very interesting approach. It seems odd for God to mimic evolution by intermittently creating new forms over a span of millions of years but I'd love to discuss with you when you have time.



In the example of the 30 foot tree extending from one coal strata to another coal strata, we are agreed that fossilization has to take place quickly. Are we agreed that coal is made from deposits of vegetation (trees etc.)? So did that picture of the tree I gave, represent a lower layer of vegetation built up around the tree, then a washing of sediment many feet thick on top, followed by another layer of vegetation several feet thick, and on top of all this another layer of sedimentation? Then the whole lot must have been fossilized at the same time. If this is the case, everything shown in that photograph must date around the same time. If this is proven to be the case, it would tend to lead to a catastrophic situation similar to the Great Flood. It has been shown in laboratory conditions that coal can be made quickly. I am not ruling out observations in geology that indicate massive water erosion taking place quickly, instead of millions of years. The Grand Canyon is a geological phenomena, which I find the Evolution explanation over millions of years, hard to accept. I could never accept that the narrow river at the bottom of the canyon was the cause for cutting through so many layers of rock/sediment over milliuons of years and the canyon being so wide at the top. Something else must have happened for the Grand Canyon to be as it is.

Many folks have suggested that the fossil trees were evidence of a global flood but that doesn't work because the trees are from different time periods. They could be evidence of local floods that happened at different times but they provide no evidence for a global flood. And besides, we know that the global flood is a myth because there has not been any mass planetary extinction in the last ten thousand years. And besides that, the story of Noah is obviously false because of the distribution of species all over the planet shows that they have lived in their specialized habits for many thousands of years. E.g. marsupials in Australia, polar bears in the arctic, penguins in the antarctic, etc. There's no way that they could have all traveled to Noah's ark in the Middle East, rode out the flood, and then traveled back to their original habitats - especially when there were only two of each kind. Noah's flood is contrary to all evidence. It is a myth.



Since we were not there when any of this took place, let’s keep speculating on everything until we can rule some things out. Even now, scientists having found the Higgs particle might say there is something else they have to find. We still have no explanation for the beginning and what unifies everything. If as Einstein says, mass converts to energy, does it convert to a single form of energy, or is there an energy we do not know about and Einstein’s equation might have to be modified to allow for more than one energy type? If there is only one energy type, then everything has come from one source. We could say that this energy source is God. So, if all mass has come from a single energy type and source, it makes sense to say that all matter, however small, must be linked and linked back in some way to that energy source. If that link is a creative process, then we have the "God" factor, which can never be sought out by man. Either man will find an explanation for how an atom is made including its constituent parts (all made from a single energy source), or else, it remains a mystery, and that mystery can only be explained by the term ‘God’.

Those are all very interesting topics. I hope we find time to pursue them. But there is no need to try to prove God since I have no problems with that as a possibility. My only objections are for the gods that men have invented like Allah, Yahweh, and Zeus. No amount of science will ever prove any of those kinds of gods.



For the purposes of this discussion on the simplest cell, we are accepting that atoms exist, whether created, or formed on their own. We are trying to build a case for the simplest cell starting from atoms and molecules to self-form, or conlcude that a creative step must have been involved.

Well, we know that atoms form on their own through natural law. Consider an electron and a proton flying freely through space. If they happen to get close enough, the proton will capture the electron and spit out a photon and TADA! We have a hydrogen atom.

Of course, we still don't know what caused the Big Bang ... but hey, we've got to start somewhere! If we start with are the basic elements like electrons and protons we know they will form atoms through natural chemical evolution with no divine intervention. This is a fact (we can do it in the lab). And it also is a fact that the atoms will combine with other atoms through natural chemical evolution to produce molecules. And those molecules will interact with each other to form more complex molecules. This is all established science. And this now returns us by a commodius vicus of recirculation to the original question of this thread - how the first cell arose. Whether that happened through natural law or God is yet to be determined. Personally, I am inclined to think it was all natural law.



Incidentally, I am reading your other posts when I have time. I know I will miss a lot, but from one post I noted this;

I agree that the Bible is a LIVING BOOK written by the living God.
I do not want a long discussion about this in this thread. I need time to get my head round this in light of everything else you have been saying about God and agreeing with Rose that the Bible is written by man and God is no more than the tribal bronze-age warrior god written about by man. If you really believe what you have said in that quote, I think it is imperative you get to grips with the goodness and severity of the God of the Bible. Just this evening, I was reading Isaiah 66 and it is evident throughout the Book of Isaiah, God pleads with His people to repent. God does not want to punish them, even though they are guilty of abominable acts. God wants them to sincerely repent. God is just and God is true to His word and unless there is repentance, some form of punishment must be expected. God is calling us all to repent; it is our fault if we do not, and we are on the receiving end of God's punishment. Even a child of God expects to receive correction and punishment in a mild form. God knows what is best for us, if only we will listen to Him and we respect Him as the Creator who made us.

I have come to accept the acts of God, which seem horrible to us, as punishment from God who is just; especially after God calls everyone to repentance and tells them to stop their abominable acts.. The Canaanites knew of the God of Israel and the stories of what God had done for the Israelites. God's reputation went before Him. Did the Canaanites show any repentance? No! That is why God saw them as reprobates and gave them up and they were dispensable. Getting rid of the Canaanites sooner, so as not to be a snare to Israel, was not to stop Israel being snared later; it was to stop them being snared sooner. It was inevitable that Israel would fail God, and do the abominable acts they did, for which they were punished later and to a different degree to that of the killing the Canaanites. This should have served as a lesson to anyone who witnessed it, or like us, are reading of those events now; we should see the lessons God is giving us. For all that God did, by way of punishment in the past (or to come on the nations in the future), it pales into insignificance compared to the love and mercy He shows to those who repent and turn to Him. God will save those who are repentant and He will give them eternal life in a glorious kingdom to come. All this is not worth losing for the sake of not understanding how God was just in what He did to the Canaanites and others. I might wish God had done it another way, but that is based on my weak human reasoning and my weak human emotions. I have come to accept from my reading of God’s word, how God just and how He is controlling events that suit His purpose, and God is far wiser than we give Him the credit for.

I can totally understand why you find your explanation compelling. I wish you could understand why I do not. Your view is based on assumptions that make no sense to me. If God is really God, why does he seem so stupid, cruel, and ignorant? Why does he seem like the invention of primitive men? I hope we can find some time to really discuss what we really feel about these issues. I think it would be great.

I'm glad you found that old quote. This is what I love about having a forum. It's like a diary of what I have thought and believed over the years. I wrote those words over two years ago. I've changed a lot since then. My current self does not agree with my former self. I still think some kind of God/Mind is the Ground of Being, but I wouldn't not say that the Bible is the living Word of God though that is what I believed for over a decade.



All the best Richard; you do not have to reply to everything I have said in this post, just hold on to what I have said, so that you know where I am coming from and that I am not taking the way of all Creationists as you perceive all of them to be. This is why for the sake of our discussions, I want you to drop the lectures about Creationists. We must reason everything out and bring everything to the table that we believe might be what happened and see how we can get the best fit. Who knows, we might find a way of resolving Evolution and Creation that will go against traditional views. If what we conclude is correct, that would mean both taditional Evolutionists and Creationists would have to change their understanding and that might be too difficult for them to do. All that has been found and all that can be seen must have an explanation; we just have to find it. "God" is the simplest of all answers; to the trusting to those with a non-academic or super intelligent mind. God does not require us to be super intellligent to understand what He requires of us. To believe in God means we have to accept that God can create and has done so at time and in some way. Not to believe in God, only leaves Evolution as the explanation. If you believe in a god (God) Richard, then you have to accept the possibility of both creation and evolution could have took place at the same time, with God in control and overseeing the process.

Kind regards

David
Thanks again for explaining things. It "reset the conversation." Let's see where it leads! :thumb:

CWH
07-13-2012, 05:32 PM
Didn't you even read the article you copied? It is titled "Watching evolution at work"! Why did you title your post "No evidence for evolution"? It's totally insane to post evidence for evolution as if it were evidence against it.

Your comments only prove yet again that you are utterly ignorant of the science of evolution. Your assertion that there is "no evidence for evolution" is the most blatant falsehood that anyone could utter. It would be fine if you had a reason to challenge some of the evidence, but to assert that there is no evidence is just as stupid as saying the earth is flat.

Your argument that you can evaluate the validity of a theory by counting the number of critics fails on three points. First, it is a false test. A true theory could have many critics. There are many examples of this in the history of science (e.g. plate tectonics). Second, your statement is false. There are very, very few qualified scientists who reject evolution. Third, you must look at the motivation of the critics. In the case of evolution, essentially all critics are utterly ignorant of the science, just like you. They are driven by nothing but blind religious dogma.

Why do you keep posting things that you don't understand? And why don't you refute my demonstration that the creationists who made that video you posted were liars, frauds, and deceivers? You write like you are a Cleverbot.
Haven't you analyze the article? 500 million year old genes and no mutations, where is the evidence of evolution?

Why don't you also refute the huge article I posted against the theory of evolution, Science vs Evolution?

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3237-Science-vs-Evolution

Do you know that 40% of Americans do not believe in Evolution and much more people throughout the world do not believe in Evolution. Doesn't that says that there is many things wrong with the theory of evolution?

I am making people aware that there are some things wrong with the theory of evolution, is that wrong?.... Same as what you are trying to make people aware that there is some things wrong with the bible God. Cleverbot? Ya, call me whatever you want, thank you.

http://collegepolitico.hubpages.com/hub/Poll-Most-Americans-Dont-Believe-Evolution

Poll:
by College politico

Poll: Most Americans Don't Believe Evolution

According to a Newsweek poll done in march of 2007:

Only 13% of Americans believe in naturalistic evolution (that is that God had no part in evolution)

However, 48% of Americans believe that God created "humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"

30% of Americans took the middle ground responding that they believed "Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"

9% remained unsure.

And it seems that this poll is not a fluke as many other polls from different polling companies have reported very similar findings. Go to polling report and look around at some of the other polls if you'd like.

It seems, to me, that these results are good news for Mike Huckabee who has gotten some heat for saying that he doesn't believe in evolution. Those kinds of attacks seem quite strange in light of America's views on the origin of life on earth.

I mean why would you attack someones view when it lines up with about 78% of Americans?

God Bless us all.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-13-2012, 06:10 PM
Haven't you analyze the article? 500 million year old genes and no mutations, where is the evidence of evolution?

Why don't you also refute the huge article I posted against the theory of evolution, Science vs Evolution?

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3237-Science-vs-Evolution

Do you know that 40% of Americans do not believe in Evolution and much more people throughout the world do not believe in Evolution. Doesn't that says that there is many things wrong with the theory of evolution?

I am making people aware that there are some things wrong with the theory of evolution, is that wrong?.... Same as what you are trying to make people aware that there is some things wrong with the bible God. Cleverbot? Ya, call me whatever you want, thank you.

God Bless us all.:pray:
Hey there Cheow,

Yes, I most certainly "analyzed the article." There was not a word in the article that said anything about "500 million year old genes and no mutations." You just made that up. How is it possible that you thought you could get away with such an obvious falsehood? Did you think I wouldn't check? Will you now admit your error? If not, then everyone will see that you don't care about the truth at all.

And how is it possible that you could think that an article that shows how evolution works could be evidence against evolution? That's just plain nuts.

As for that "huge article" you copied and pasted without any understanding, I will refute it as time permits. This is important because so many people have been deluded by creationist lies. But I don't feel a need to respond to you personally because you rarely give intelligent responses to what I write. And when I prove you wrong, you just ignore what I wrote and then paste more ignorant creationist crap. You ignore the facts and say there are no facts even when the facts are staring you in the face. You simply don't understand the things you copy and paste. And you just make up crap that is not even in the article you posted! Case in point: The article you posted said nothing about "500 million year old genes and no mutations." YOU JUST MADE THAT UP! That's just nuts.

There's nothing I can do if you want to be deluded. But as I said in a recent post to you, I would be delighted if you wanted to if wanted to discuss the evidence for evolution.

Now if you really want to talk about "responding to posts" then you would do well to start with this one (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3237-Science-vs-Evolution&p=47328#post47328), where I challenged you to respond to other posts you have ignored. Here's what I wrote:

======== PREVIOUS POST CWH NEVER ANSWERED =========



I have presented lots of evidence against the theory of macro-evolution so that people are aware that there is lots of flaws in that theory. I am not against micro -evolution which I already said is plausible but I am against MACRO-EVOLUTION. I will let the readers decide the verdict.

Hey there Cheow, :yo:

I would be absolutely delighted if you would try to engage me in a serious discussion about the theory of evolution. But to do that, you have to know what the theory actually states and the evidence supporting it. That's why I started the thread called What's the Best Evidence for Evolution? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution). I wanted to give you and all creationists an opportunity to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about and that you are sufficiently familiar with the evidence to legitimately challenge it. I was hoping this would elevate the conversation to where we were actually talking to each other (rather than past each other) and really dealing with the facts so we could all come to a better understanding. If you really believed that you had the truth you would want to do this too. This is the only way anyone could ever hope to successfully challenge an established scientific theory. Folks refusing to do this only show they are not qualified to criticize the theory in any way at all. It is a test to help us all distinguish between those seeking the truth and those seeking to protect their religious dogma from the truth. That's why this test is such a serious challenge for most creationists.

Unfortunately, you refused to rationally participate in that thread and chose rather to vandalize it by posting ridiculous creationist propaganda that has long been refuted. I'm talking about post #75 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=46949#post46949) where you posted an absurd video with the outrageously ironic title "LIES, FRAUD and DECEIT: The Dilemma of Evolution Teaching" which I showed to be nothing but deliberate lies, fraud, and deceit produced by the creationists. I documented their lies, fraud, and deceit and you never once tried to refute the evidence. Therefore, the evidence that those creationists are liars, frauds, and deceivers stands. And it will stand until someone successfully refutes it which will never happen because they really are liars, frauds, and deceivers.



You can call me whatever you want. You have been brainwashed by the stupid theory of macro-evolution.

I'm not calling you anything. I am only telling you how you make yourself look when you post ridiculous creationist propaganda that you don't even understand. It is ludicrous for you to call me "brainwashed" and the theory of evolution "stupid." You disgrace yourself and make a mockery of your claim to be a Christian when you spew out such juvenile and ignorant absurdities.



What facts have you presented? None.

That's not true and you know it. For example, in post #11 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47118#post47118) of the thread The Simplest Cell (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell) I presented a video from leading evolutionary scientists about the Genetic Tool Kit common to all animals. They conducted an experiment by putting a gene from a mouse in a fruitfly and concluded that this was evidence of common descent. In post #12 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47121#post47121) you rejected that evidence saying:
No it is not evidence of evolution because the logic is that someone or something intelligent have to put this eyeless gene into the fruit fly eye. This have never occur on its own in nature.

Your answer indicated a total failure to understand the point of the video so I asked:
Can you tell me why those scientists concluded that all animals share a common ancestor? What evidence supported their conclusion?

You refused to answer my question, so I asked again:
Why did those scientists think their experiment was good evidence for their conclusion?

And then you said this in post #32 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47200#post47200):
I have already answered your question... because they have already been brainwashed by the false theory of evolution during their school education.

That was your answer! You showed ZERO understanding of the evidence presented in the video. You showed a complete inability to answer any question about why scientists thought their conclusion followed from that experiment. Your claim that I have not presented any evidence is both false and absurd. You wouldn't understand evidence if it slapped you in the face.



Why not try to refute all the evidences which I have presented in my thread, "Science vs Evolution"? The facts that I and every skeptic wanted is very simple: demonstrate to us how life started from non-living things and demonstrate to us one species of animal or plant turning into another species naturally. And if you can demonstrate these, I will keep my big mouth shut. So far no one have ever demonstrate these, if someone did, he will get the Nobel Prize.

In post #82 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=46962#post46962) I totally refuted the nine minute video you posted in post #75 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=46949#post46949) and you ignored the evidence. Why then should I waste my time refuting a 90 minute creationist video? You don't understand the science so you wouldn't understand my refutation. Why bother? You have placed yourself outside all rational discourse.

Your promise that "if you can demonstrate these, I will keep my big mouth shut" rings hollow since I totally refuted the video in post #82 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=46962#post46962) and you totally ignored the evidence and just started new threads with fresh steaming creationist bullshit.

Your request for a demonstration of speciation has already been fulfilled. There is plenty of evidence of new species arising through evolution. You would know this if you cared at all for the truth.



There is no evidence in macro-evolution just assumptions....e.g. few evolutionists believe in natural selection nowadays because it doesn't work! What logic? I can easily come out with a family tree of computer viruses and say they are related to one another from a common descent which is man-made computer codes.

Your assertions are false. There is plenty of evidence but you just ignore it and pretend it is not there. I had to ask you half a dozen times to explain why the leading evolutionary scientists drew the conclusions they did from the evidence presented, and you merely said "because they are brainwashed." This shows that you are utterly ignorant of all science. This is now totally obvious to anyone reading this thread (and remember, there are thousands of people who read your words). You are only confirming the mockery creationists have made of themselves.




And your accusation that I am posting evidence for evolution because I "believe there is no God" is a blatant lie. I have never said there is no God. On the contrary, I have repeatedly told everyone that there could be a God. There is no excuse for your blatant lies. Will you repent of your error?
Then STOP bashing God! Hope you repent before it is too late. You even said in one of your post that you want everyone to be like you free from their religion, I wonder what is your real motive?....lead us away from the love of God? That is the most horrible thing to do. If you do not want to go to heaven, that's fine but do not prevent others from going to heaven. If you have never said there is no God then why is there a thread, "There are no gods". Please amend the title to "There may be a god".

I have not been "bashing GOD" in any way at all. I am simply exposing how the Bible bashes God when it accuses him of horrible, evil, and irrational behaviors.

I have no motive other than truth. Your motive is equally obvious. You are seeking to protect your false religious dogmas from the truth. Let me save you some trouble. I can guarantee one thing. The truth will win.

Your hatred of truth is not love of God.




That is not true. You have never shown any understanding of evolution at all, let alone any "errors." You, like essentially all creationists, are totally ignorant. You cannot even state what evidence the scientists have found that supports their theories. You are like a blind man declaring there is no such thing as a rainbow. You are totally deluded about this issue. It is pathetic beyond all description.
Are scientist always right? Ya, the theory of Phlogiston, the Piltdown Man etc. I can assure you mega-evolution will be the biggest deceit in human history. There are Creationists and Intelligent Designers (of which many are non-Christians) because the theory of evolution have too many flaws. It has nothing to do with religious dogma. Ever why there are very few critics on the theory of combustion or gravity?

You are demonstrating how fundamentalist Christianity corrupts the mind and the morals of believers. It makes people sick and prone to evil. It makes people become liars. You are repeating the evil lies of the creationists. The Piltdown man was a hoax perpetrated ON the evolutionary scientists, not BY the evolutionary scientists. And it was corrected BY the evolutionary scientists. Your deliberate misrepresentation of these facts makes you a liar. I wish it weren't so, but there's no other way to say it.



You mean brilliant scientists cannot be deceived or brainwashed? They were deceived before... Piltdown Man, Archeoraptor, Pekin man, Phlogiston. I wonder what else they were deceived without even knowing it.

Anyone can be deceived or mistaken. The beauty and power of science is that it gives us a way to find the truth. It was the scientists who discovered that they had been deceived by liars who invented the Piltdown Man, Archeoraptor, and Pekin man. And it was experimental evidence that showed them the error of the phlogiston theory. It is fascinating that now they must fight the creationist liars who are misrepresenting the truth of these matters.

Dogmatic religion is the opposite of science. It corrupts the hearts and minds of believers and makes them hate the truth.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-13-2012, 06:29 PM
Your argument that you can evaluate the validity of a theory by counting the number of critics fails on three points. First, it is a false test. A true theory could have many critics. There are many examples of this in the history of science (e.g. plate tectonics). Second, your statement is false. There are very, very few qualified scientists who reject evolution. Third, you must look at the motivation of the critics. In the case of evolution, essentially all critics are utterly ignorant of the science, just like you. They are driven by nothing but blind religious dogma.
Do you know that 40% of Americans do not believe in Evolution and much more people throughout the world do not believe in Evolution. Doesn't that says that there is many things wrong with the theory of evolution?

No, it does not. And you would understand why if you had read the post you are "responding" to. I made it bold red to help you read it. It explains the errors in your logic.



I am making people aware that there are some things wrong with the theory of evolution, is that wrong?.... Same as what you are trying to make people aware that there is some things wrong with the bible God. Cleverbot? Ya, call me whatever you want, thank you.

It would be absolutely wonderful if you actually tried to provide some real evidence that "there are some things wrong with the theory of evolution" and if you could explain what that evidence really means. But you can't do that. I asked you over and over and over again to explain some basic evidence presented by leading evolutionary scientists, and all you could say was "there was no evidence" and "they are all brainwashed"! If that's what you think it means to make people "aware" then you are something I won't bother naming because you don't care how stupid you look or how wrong you are.



http://collegepolitico.hubpages.com/hub/Poll-Most-Americans-Dont-Believe-Evolution

Poll:
by College politico

Poll: Most Americans Don't Believe Evolution

According to a Newsweek poll done in march of 2007:

Only 13% of Americans believe in naturalistic evolution (that is that God had no part in evolution)

However, 48% of Americans believe that God created "humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"

30% of Americans took the middle ground responding that they believed "Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"

9% remained unsure.

And it seems that this poll is not a fluke as many other polls from different polling companies have reported very similar findings. Go to polling report and look around at some of the other polls if you'd like.

It seems, to me, that these results are good news for Mike Huckabee who has gotten some heat for saying that he doesn't believe in evolution. Those kinds of attacks seem quite strange in light of America's views on the origin of life on earth.

I mean why would you attack someones view when it lines up with about 78% of Americans?

God Bless us all.:pray:
And that shows how fundamentalist religion corrupts the minds of believers.

There is a big flaw in your stats. You need to cross-correlate with religious beliefs. That shows that the people who reject the science of evolution do so because they are religiously programmed zombies with no understanding. They are just robots who have been programmed by their ignorant masters to reject modern science. Here's the graph from a big article (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1105/darwin-debate-religion-evolution) from the Pew Research Center. It shows the source of the ignorance is primarily fundamentalist religions like evangelical Christianity, Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses. The Buddhists are the most connected with reality, which is exactly what I would have predicted since Buddhism is atheistic.


518

CWH
07-13-2012, 11:56 PM
Ok,let's move the debate in another direction. We all know that the theory of evolution is imperfect as with many theories, why not just list the imperfections and discussed from there? I will list mine and the opponents Must list theirs to be fair. My two most unbelievable views of the theory of mega-evolution are:
1. Nonliving things cannot become living things on their own
2. No species of plants and animals have ever evolve into another species on their own

Now what is yours? Opponents must name their list of the imperfections of the theory of evolution before the debate can move on. Are you game?


God blessed.:pray:

Twospirits
07-14-2012, 06:52 AM
Richard wrote,

There is a big flaw in your stats. You need to cross-correlate with religious beliefs. That shows that the people who reject the science of evolution do so because they are religiously programmed zombies with no understanding. They are just robots who have been programmed by their ignorant masters to reject modern science. Here's the graph from a big article from the Pew Research Center. It shows the source of the ignorance is primarily fundamentalist religions like evangelical Christianity, Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses. The Buddhists are the most connected with reality, which is exactly what I would have predicted since Buddhism is atheistic.

The chart is not about “rejecting modern science”- the science itself -as you erroneously state, but rather rejecting the science (theory) “of evolution.”

Atheism

Secular Humanists believe that there is no God, that science and the scientific process have made God obsolete. Humanists believe that only matter – things we can touch, feel, prove, or study – exists and has always existed. Man is only matter (no soul or spirit). No supernatural explanation is needed for the existence of this matter.

Secular Science-Darwinian Evolution

The theory of Darwinism Evolution purports that natural selection acts on genetic variations within individuals in populations and that mutations (especially random copying errors in DNA) provide the main source of these variations. Because positive mutations seem to be rare, Darwinism contends that evolution will be a slow, gradual process. Without naturalistic evolution, there is no Secular Worldview. Anything else would demand a Creator, which would mean that man is not the source of all things. Secular Humanists believe that science has proven the theory of evolution to the extent that it is no longer a theory but a scientific fact. According to this “fact,” man is the most highly evolved of all creatures, and is now responsible for directing and aiding the evolutionary process.

For the Humanist, atheistic evolution is not one option among many, but rather the only option compatible with their worldview. Creationism, or Intelligent Design, is considered an enemy of science. Evolutionists have stated that creationists cannot be real scientists.

Is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Not at all!

God bless---Twospirits

Rose
07-14-2012, 09:03 AM
Is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Not at all!

God bless---Twospirits

The wonderful thing about the true scientific approach is that the idea of a god or no god can be set aside. One does not need to posit either view in order to research, explore, experiment and discover. Whether an intelligent mind exists or not plays no part in discovering how the universe operates, or if evolution is true or false. Facts are facts regardless of ones beliefs, if the pieces fit and a solid foundation is established upon which experiments can be executed then progress is made and mans understanding is expanded. Evolution is either true or it's not, regardless of the existence of god.

That was a big problem in the early Church, because they denied individuals the right to research anything that went against their interpretation of the Bible, which kept progress at a standstill until brave soles went against the Churches dogmas and then look what happened...the scientific revolution :thumb: Truth is truth wherever it's found!

All the best,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
07-14-2012, 09:13 AM
Ok,let's move the debate in another direction. We all know that the theory of evolution is imperfect as with many theories, why not just list the imperfections and discussed from there? I will list mine and the opponents Must list theirs to be fair. My two most unbelievable views of the theory of mega-evolution are:
1. Nonliving things cannot become living things on their own
2. No species of plants and animals have ever evolve into another species on their own

Now what is yours? Opponents must name their list of the imperfections of the theory of evolution before the debate can move on. Are you game?


God blessed.:pray:
I'm glad you want to move the debate in another direction, but the direction you suggest will not help because you are totally ignorant of the science.

I've already explained how this should work. If a person wanted to debate the validity of the theory of calculus, he would need to understand basic mathematics like 1 + 2 = 3. If he couldn't add those numbers, he certainly wouldn't have sufficient understanding to challenge the theory of calculus. The same goes for evolution. If don't understand (or don't even know about) the evidence for evolution, then you are not qualified to debate the topic. That's why I have repeatedly asked you to present the best evidence for evolution, but you refuse. This indicates that you are totally ignorant of the science and so are unqualified for debate.

But I will play along with your game in the hopes that you will choose to discuss the evidence.

1. Nonliving things cannot become living things on their own
There are two problems with this line of reasoning. First, you don't know if it is true or not. You merely assert that abiogenesis could not happen. You have not given any evidence that this could not occur. Second, it wouldn't matter if it were true. I've already conceded that God could have created the first cell. That says nothing about the theory of evolution which explains how the first cell evolved into all the complex organisms. So your point is moot. It proves nothing at all, let alone that evolution is false.

2. No species of plants and animals have ever evolve into another species on their own
That is simply false. We have massive evidence that plants and animals have evolved into different species. That's what the whole theory is about! Darwin's book was called "The Origin of Species." If you disagree, then you will need to show the errors in the evidence used by evolutionists.

Now please answer my questions:

Do you accept the evidence for the geological ages and the stratification of fossils? Do you understand why this is evidence for evolution?

CWH
07-14-2012, 09:32 AM
I'm glad you want to move the debate in another direction, but the direction you suggest will not help because you are totally ignorant of the science.

I've already explained how this should work. If a person wanted to debate the validity of the theory of calculus, he would need to understand basic mathematics like 1 + 2 = 3. If he couldn't add those numbers, he certainly wouldn't have sufficient understanding to challenge the theory of calculus. The same goes for evolution. If don't understand (or don't even know about) the evidence for evolution, then you are not qualified to debate the topic. That's why I have repeatedly asked you to present the best evidence for evolution, but you refuse. This indicates that you are totally ignorant of the science and so are unqualified for debate.

But I will play along with your game in the hopes that you will choose to discuss the evidence.

1. Nonliving things cannot become living things on their own
There are two problems with this line of reasoning. First, you don't know if it is true or not. You merely assert that abiogenesis could not happen. You have not given any evidence that this could not occur. Second, it wouldn't matter if it were true. I've already conceded that God could have created the first cell. That says nothing about the theory of evolution which explains how the first cell evolved into all the complex organisms. So your point is moot. It proves nothing at all, let alone that evolution is false.

2. No species of plants and animals have ever evolve into another species on their own
That is simply false. We have massive evidence that plants and animals have evolved into different species. That's what the whole theory is about! Darwin's book was called "The Origin of Species." If you disagree, then you will need to show the errors in the evidence used by evolutionists.

Now please answer my questions:

Do you accept the evidence for the geological ages and the stratification of fossils? Do you understand why this is evidence for evolution?

No I have already said that the debate will not move on unless the opponent states their list of what they think are the imperfections of the theory of evolution. This is not fair to me since I have already given my list. If you are not game, just say so, don't deviate or give excuses.

God Blessed.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-14-2012, 10:01 AM
The chart is not about “rejecting modern science”- the science itself -as you erroneously state, but rather rejecting the science (theory) “of evolution.”

That's not correct because the rejection of evolution involves the rejection of the entire body of modern science. This is because all truth about the physical world is linked together in an absolutely unbreakable web of mutual confirmation. For example, the science of geology began to understand the geological ages two hundred years ago, before the theory of evolution was even discovered. And modern geologists still use the same sequence that was discovered back then. The different geological ages contain fossils of different organisms. The older fossils are simpler and the younger fossils are more complex. This is the primary evidence that the theory of evolution is meant to explain. Rejection of evolution often involves rejection of this evidence, which is a rejection of the geological ages and all the related science (such as radiometric dating) that supports it.

That's why I said that creationists are rejecting the entire body of modern science. You can't reject just one part of an integrated body of knowledge without rejecting everything that is connected to it.



Atheism

Secular Humanists believe that there is no God, that science and the scientific process have made God obsolete. Humanists believe that only matter – things we can touch, feel, prove, or study – exists and has always existed. Man is only matter (no soul or spirit). No supernatural explanation is needed for the existence of this matter.

That's just a philosophical position. It has nothing to do with evolution. There are evangelical Christians like Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project) who are fully convinced by the evidence for evolution. Even the Pope agrees with the evidence. It is fundamentalists like evangelical Christians, Muslims, Mormon, and JWs that reject the science that they don't even understand.



Secular Science-Darwinian Evolution

The theory of Darwinism Evolution purports that natural selection acts on genetic variations within individuals in populations and that mutations (especially random copying errors in DNA) provide the main source of these variations. Because positive mutations seem to be rare, Darwinism contends that evolution will be a slow, gradual process. Without naturalistic evolution, there is no Secular Worldview. Anything else would demand a Creator, which would mean that man is not the source of all things. Secular Humanists believe that science has proven the theory of evolution to the extent that it is no longer a theory but a scientific fact. According to this “fact,” man is the most highly evolved of all creatures, and is now responsible for directing and aiding the evolutionary process.


There are many errors in your comments.

1) There are many sources of genetic variation other than mutation. Gene flow (any movement of genes from one population to another, e.g. viruses), gene recombination and duplication, sexual reproduction, etc.

2) The "secular worldview" does has nothing to do with man being "the source of all things." That doesn't even make sense. The secular worldview sees mankind as just another evolved organism. No evolved organism is seen as the "source of all things."

3) It doesn't matter if there is a God or not. Many evolutionists believe in God. Those concepts are not mutually exclusive.

4) Your statement that secular humanists say that the theory of evolution "is no longer a theory but a scientific fact" indicates you do not understand the meaning of "theory" in a scientific context. Scientific theories are never contrasted with facts because theories are based on the facts they are intended to explain. When people say that evolution is a fact, they are saying that we have "rock solid" (literally!) evidence that organisms evolved from simpler to more complex forms over a span of billions of years. Now it could be that God directed the evolution, but the evolution itself cannot be denied because it is a demonstrable fact.



For the Humanist, atheistic evolution is not one option among many, but rather the only option compatible with their worldview. Creationism, or Intelligent Design, is considered an enemy of science. Evolutionists have stated that creationists cannot be real scientists.

Is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Not at all!

God bless---Twospirits
I agree that an atheist who holds to the philosophy of materialistic reductionism can see no other possibility, but that doesn't tell us anything about the truth or falsehood of evolution. And it's not the only kind of atheism either. There are two kinds of atheists. 1) A person who does not believe in any personal god such as Allah, Yahweh, or Zeus. That's me. 2) Foolish atheists who claim that there is no god of any kind. They are foolish because they are asserting something they cannot know. So a person can be an atheist and not hold to the philosophy of materialistic reductionism. That's me. I think there could be a cosmic mind of which we are all part, that is very "godlike" but is not properly represented in any of the gods of the theistic religions.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
07-14-2012, 10:02 AM
No I have already said that the debate will not move on unless the opponent states their list of what they think are the imperfections of the theory of evolution. This is not fair to me since I have already given my list. If you are not game, just say so, don't deviate or give excuses.

God Blessed.:pray:

I answered your questions. Now please answer mine.

Your idea that I should state the "imperfections" of the theory of evolution is just another attempt to dodge the evidence for evolution. But if you really want to play that game, then you need to begin by stating the "imperfections" of creationism. A good place to start would be to note that it's not even a scientific theory at all. It tells us nothing but "goddidit." And you could talk about how creationists can't even agree with each other on fundamental facts like the age of the earth and the meaning of "day" in Genesis 1.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-14-2012, 11:41 AM
Haven't you analyze the article? 500 million year old genes and no mutations, where is the evidence of evolution?
Hey there Cheow,

Yes, I most certainly "analyzed the article." There was not a word in the article that said anything about "500 million year old genes and no mutations." You just made that up. How is it possible that you thought you could get away with such an obvious falsehood? Did you think I wouldn't check? Will you now admit your error? If not, then everyone will see that you don't care about the truth at all.



Ok,let's move the debate in another direction.
Gotchya!

You are trying to change the subject because I proved that you are wrong. :hysterical:

So are you going to admit your error? Or just try to fool everyone by changing the topic? I don't care if you do or don't since either way my words are proven true and your errors are exposed.

CWH
07-14-2012, 05:31 PM
I answered your questions. Now please answer mine.

Your idea that I should state the "imperfections" of the theory of evolution is just another attempt to dodge the evidence for evolution. But if you really want to play that game, then you need to begin by stating the "imperfections" of creationism. A good place to start would be to note that it's not even a scientific theory at all. It tells us nothing but "goddidit." And you could talk about how creationists can't even agree with each other on fundamental facts like the age of the earth and the meaning of "day" in Genesis 1.

I have already said that the debate will not move unless the evolutionist opponents must state the imperfections of the theory of evolution. Since you are not game, the game is closed. The saying is confirmed, no evolutionists will ever admit the flaws of the theory of evolution. Thank you.

As such I shall ensd this post with a confession of a former evolutionist:

Confession of a
former evolutionist

I ADMIT IT. I was once an evolutionist. An ardent one. Perhaps even a biased one, for I would not, for the longest time, consider any other possibility.

My father was a geologist, and, schooled in early twentieth century secular ways of thought, naturally had no other way of looking at the fossil record than as a chronicle of evolutionary change. (Even today hardly anyone considers any other possible interpretation.) So I was raised on the milk of evolutionary theory. In year twelve at high school, our biology class required an in-depth study of the theory of evolution. I was zealous for what was taught. I swallowed the supportive evidence as if it were proof. Not mindlessly, mind you; I really felt it was quite compelling. (It wasn't until years later that I discovered that one of those “proofs” we were offered — ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny — had long since been rejected even by evolutionists.) For my efforts I was even awarded the honor of sharing the prize for dux in biology.

I was so convinced of the "fact" of evolution that I was amazed when our English teacher set us an essay on the topic of the conflict between religion and science. Conflict. What conflict? Oh yes. I was aware that until the middle of the nineteenth century most people believed the biblical account of creation. But Darwin had yanked out every prop from under the biblical version, leaving it utterly threadbare. Or so I thought. And the Scopes trial had hammered the last nail into the coffin. Only obscurantists and religious fanatics still clung to any idea of divine fiat as the explanation for life. Surely conflict had ceased a long time ago.

So sure was I of the veracity of Darwin's dogma, that I took no notice whatsoever of the disquieting thoughts that came into my mind time and again while studying the theory and the evidence. I could see that all too often the facts simply didn't match the theory. (They don't match the more recent versions of evolutionary theory much better, either.) Many times I tried to picture in my mind the steps by which one organ or organism changed into another, and found that in every instance I was stumped. I remember our biology textbook had an illustration of the structure of the heart in the basic groups of vertebrates. I tried to imagine how the reptile heart actually changed into the bird heart, and found it just couldn't be done. But, hey, much more intelligent people must have grappled with those questions and been able to answer them convincingly.

But you know something? They haven't! Grappled, yes. Answered convincingly? No! Many have tried. Brilliant men, such as Steven Jay Gould. Richard Dawkins, and others too numerous to mention. In my opinion, all evolutionary explanations crumple under, and fall upon, the rock of logic and common sense.

I also remember being stumped by a theological question. Starting from the premise that God used evolution as His method of creation, I wondered about the point at which salvation first became a possibility. If human beings had descended by a graded series of tiny changes from some proto-human, exactly which tiny mutation created the transitional subspecies to which God first offered salvation? What seemingly small boost in mental capacity brought into being a creature upon which God smiled benignly and said, “At last; now we are in business”? I posed this question to the school chaplain (a man whom I greatly respect to this day). He drew back on his pipe, thought for a few seconds, and responded, “There are some questions for which we just don't have an answer” — or words to that effect. Back in those days, when agnosticism was de rigueur, that answer seemed acceptable to me.

Why did I change?

Nettles of doubts about the ability of Darwin's fabulous interpretation to explain the facts did not cause me, though, to doubt the truth of the theory. Horror of horrors! Everyone knew evolution was true. Who in his right mind would dare to question the received wisdom of such a fervently-embraced religious doctrine as evolution? But just as there were a few brave individuals in past centuries who questioned the authority of the mother church, I was surprised to discover, in my first year at Melbourne University, that a handful of intelligent folk actually questioned the unquestioned authority of evolutionary "science". I found a book or two in the university library evolution section that argued against evolution.

One day, when it had finally sunk in that the case against the dogma of evolution may be worth considering, I decided to consider the whole matter with an open mind. I actually began to read some of the literature in support of the biblical account of creation and to consider some of the flaws in evolutionary teaching. I was amazed at the results. More and more I came to see that the niggling doubts that I had banished from my mind were real objections to evolution theory, and were not just due to lack of understanding on my part. Slowly but surely, the nettlesome difficulties of evolutionary philosophy became a burr under the saddle that bucked me off the horse of evolution. I began to see that evolution had some real Trojan horses. Perhaps you could call them Trojan hearses, because to me, they are sufficiently strong to sound the death knell of the idea that life forms of today are the result of millions of years of modifications of previous life forms.

Evolution's Trojan hearses

Today, the ability of evolution to account for the facts is facing a growing chorus of discontent. Theory and facts just don't match. The arguments are becoming more and more sophisticated with growth in knowledge. Today you hear about the argument from cladistics. And from protein matching, etc. All very interesting stuff to consider. But the two Trojan Hearses that I discovered almost 35 years ago are still, to me, "the biggies". They will probably remain forever the key Achilles' heels of evolution. The beautiful thing is that you don't have to have a PhD to be able to understand these simple yet overwhelming objections to evolution.

In the past, evolutionists tried to answer these, but never did so satisfactorily, as far as I am concerned. Today they tend to gloss right over them, occasionally giving them lip service as if they are matters that have long since been settled. But they are not. I am reminded of an old saying: "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."

Trojan hearse one: complex interplay of parts

A car cannot function without its carburetor. (Itself a complex part composed of many parts). Or its spark plugs. Take any essential part out, and it simply won't work. The theory of evolution by gradual modification of existing organisms cannot account for the seemingly infinite examples of this principle at work in nature. In fact, every creature is an example of this principle in action. Because every creature depends for its functioning on a harmonious working together of independent parts. Take any one part away, and you're a dead duck.

Evolutionary theory says that, for instance, a spider's incredibly complex silk-producing and spinning apparatus evolved one step at a time. Once upon a time there was a "semi-demi-proto-spider" without any such apparatus. It survived by hunting on the ground. Then one mutation occurred, and you had a demi-proto spider with, miracle of miracles, one perfect part of the unbelievably complex apparatus. But because this one part was of no use whatever to the spider, it didn't get selected by Mother Nature to be passed on to succeeding generations of proto spiders. End of the story. No evolution occurred. This may sound simplistic, but try and confute the reasoning.

Better still, ask an evolutionist to give you a precise, step-by-step reckoning, beginning with no silk-producing apparatus, of each step along the pathway of achieving even the "simplest" known version of silk-producing machinery. Remember, each successive modification must be advantageous to its proud new owner, or it will not be made immortal by the god of natural selection. Assuming a carburetor could survive by itself, would the addition of a spark plug be any advantage? None whatsoever. Ah, the faith of evolution!

As mentioned earlier, even as a high school student, thoroughly convinced of the truth of evolution, I could never see how the lofty sounding theory of natural selection could actually produce the end results we see today. It sounded good until you tried to apply it to any creature you could think of. No matter how limited your education, you should be able to see this.

Various evolutionists have tried to address this problem that won't go away. Some have even devised clever-sounding rebuttals to this objection. One such example goes by the cute little name of “preadaptation”. For instance, Stephen Jay Gould opines: “With preadaptation, we cut through the dilemma of a function for incipient stages by accepting the standard objection and admitting that intermediate forms did not work in the same way as their perfected descendants. We avoid the excellent question, What good is 5 percent of an eye? By arguing that the possessor of such an incipient structure did not use it for sight”. Clever, indeed; but born of desperation.

The other side of this coin is the positive one in support of creation — the argument by design. In spite of Dawkins' apology for evolution entitled "The Blind Watchmaker", the fundamentals of the old argument of William Paley remain valid.

Trojan hearse two: where are the intermediates?

Yes. Where are they, pray tell. If evolution was true, then we should be surrounded by a blancmange of creatures. It would be impossible to tell where one species ends and another begins. Don't let yourself be intimidated by the mockery of those who will try and make you sound ignorant for suggesting that this is a fatal flaw of evolution theory. It is! Evolutionists are guilty of some remarkable forms of casuistry when they try to argue around this.

Even if you give credence to the idea that successive extinctions have destroyed some of the intermediates, there still ought to be numerous living examples of single-step-by-single-step transitions from one species to another, one genus to another, one family to another. But you won't find them. An evolutionist would answer this by saying: "But there are!" And then would assert that since a rhipidistian (a type of extinct "fish") is intermediate between "normal" fish and amphibians, that there you have an example of a transitional form.

The whole point I am making here is that between rhipidistians and amphibians untold thousands of transitional forms must have swum and plodded, the older blending imperceptibly into the newer as modifications occurred, as fins imperceptibly morphed into limbs. A number of clever theories have been put forth over the years to account for the lack of this predicted blancmange. I'm sorry, but none of the ones I am familiar with has a tinge of persuasion to it. And the more radical ones, the saltationist theories, are so radical that you have to ask yourself if the adherents should even be called evolutionists. But that's another story.

Almost 30 years on down the line, in spite of numerous Steven Jay Gould articles I have read, I find myself more confident than ever that the facts of nature tally much better with the biblical account of creation than with evolution theory. I'm no longer afraid to be considered a heretic. Will the real myth please stand up?

Rod McQueen

God Bless Creationism. :pray:

CWH
07-14-2012, 05:45 PM
I think this book will drive RAM and Rose insane:

http://www.darwinismthegreatestlieinhistory.com/index.php

Darwinism Watch:

Channels That Only Show Animals’ Savage Aspects Are Engaging in Darwinist Propaganda 2012-04-06

Perfection Is an Outcome Shown by Science and Prevails in All Living Structures 2012-03-28
There Is No Such Thing as the “First Self-reproducing Molecule That Gave Rise to Life” 2012-03-28

Response To The Darwinist Deceptions In The News Site Malaysian Insider 2012-03-25

Prof. Robert Davis, from Glasgow University, warned that the Scottish curriculum is “under pressure” of atheists like Richard Dawkins 2012-02-29

Fearing death will avail CNN producer Larry King nothing at all 2012-02-25

The Huffington Post Writer Nidhal Guessoum’s Errors Concerning Evolution 2012-01-18

The error of Al Jazeera TV's claim that evolution and religion might be reconciled must be made up for right away 2012-01-03

Why are Darwinist journals ceasing publication one after the other? 2011-06-19

Tales of ''Feathered Dinosaurs'' No Longer Deceive Anyone 2011-06-18


God Bless Creationism.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-14-2012, 05:45 PM
I have already said that the debate will not move unless the evolutionist opponents must state the imperfections of the theory of evolution. Since you are not game, the game is closed. The saying is confirmed, no evolutionists will ever admit the flaws of the theory of evolution. Thank you.

:lmbo:

Thanks Cheow. You have proven yet again that you don't care about any evidence of any kind. I've proven you wrong many times and all you do is run and hide from the truth. You are the perfect example of how religion deludes people, and how believers hate the truth with their whole heart.

My only question is why you keep doing everything in your power to prove that religion destroys the minds of believers. What is your motive? Are you a secret agent of atheism who is trying to undermine Christianity by pretending to be a believer?

Have a nice day.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-14-2012, 05:50 PM
I think this book will drive RAM and Rose insane:

http://www.darwinismthegreatestlieinhistory.com/index.php

Darwinism Watch:

Channels That Only Show Animals’ Savage Aspects Are Engaging in Darwinist Propaganda 2012-04-06

Perfection Is an Outcome Shown by Science and Prevails in All Living Structures 2012-03-28
There Is No Such Thing as the “First Self-reproducing Molecule That Gave Rise to Life” 2012-03-28

Response To The Darwinist Deceptions In The News Site Malaysian Insider 2012-03-25

Prof. Robert Davis, from Glasgow University, warned that the Scottish curriculum is “under pressure” of atheists like Richard Dawkins 2012-02-29

Fearing death will avail CNN producer Larry King nothing at all 2012-02-25

The Huffington Post Writer Nidhal Guessoum’s Errors Concerning Evolution 2012-01-18

The error of Al Jazeera TV's claim that evolution and religion might be reconciled must be made up for right away 2012-01-03

Why are Darwinist journals ceasing publication one after the other? 2011-06-19

Tales of ''Feathered Dinosaurs'' No Longer Deceive Anyone 2011-06-18


God Bless Creationism.:pray:

Creationist lies don't drive me insane. They just make me more determined to expose their corrupt lying hearts so folks who want the truth (unlike you) will have a better chance to free their minds from the evils of religious dogmas.

You are doing some very effective work as a secret agent for atheism! :congrats:

You make Richard Dawkins proud!

Have a nice day.

PS: The more you write the more convinced I am that you are just a Chinese Cleverbot. Your answers are identical. Every time I prove you are wrong you run and hide by changing the subject. You know this is true. It's all been recorded. You posted a scientific article and said that it said there were no mutations of a gene for over 500 million years, but the article said no such thing. I pointed this out to you TWICE and you have not responded. It's a pity you don't realize how this makes you look to sane people.

CWH
07-14-2012, 06:13 PM
:lmbo:

Thanks Cheow. You have proven yet again that you don't care about any evidence of any kind. I've proven you wrong many times and all you do is run and hide from the truth. You are the perfect example of how religion deludes people, and how believers hate the truth with their whole heart.

My only question is why you keep doing everything in your power to prove that religion destroys the minds of believers. What is your motive? Are you a secret agent of atheism who is trying to undermine Christianity by pretending to be a believer?

Have a nice day.

Say whatever you want, I am not trying to prove anything except telling others that there are flaws in the theory of evolution which no evolutionist dare to admit. If they are truth seekers, they should tell us what are the flaws of the theory of evolution and open them for discussions. Isn't it better to hear from the horses' mouths? And why are they not opening their golden mouths?

As such, the next best alternative is to hear from the confessions of former evolutionists:

Happy Reading:

http://harunyahya.com/en/works/8063/Confessions+Of+The+Evolutionists


God Bless the Truth of Creationism and Intelligent Design.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-14-2012, 07:07 PM
Say whatever you want, I am not trying to prove anything except telling others that there are flaws in the theory of evolution which no evolutionist dare to admit. If they are truth seekers, they should tell us what are the flaws of the theory of evolution and open them for discussions. Isn't it better to hear from the horses' mouths? And why are they not opening their golden mouths?

As such, the next best alternative is to hear from the confessions of former evolutionists:

Happy Reading:

http://harunyahya.com/en/works/8063/Confessions+Of+The+Evolutionists


God Bless the Truth of Creationism and Intelligent Design.:pray:
Your statements are false as usual. No evolutionary scientists have any problem admitting that there are unsolved problems with evolution.

You are simply ignorant and confused. You assert that there are "flaws" in the theory of evolution, but you don't know anything about the theory at all. What are you going to do next, walk into an operating room and grab the scalpel from the hand a brain surgeon and show him how to do it? Your assertions are utterly absurd. All you are doing is showing why creationists are wrong and why they remain ignorant.

And to top it all off, you have invented a moronic mockery of my challenge for opponents to state the best evidence for their opponents thesis. I say "moronic mockery" because your challenge is not designed to discover truth, but rather to perpetuate ignorance. My challenge is designed to help people find the truth and to expose those who pretend to have truth but actually are willfully ignorant and deceptive.

Bottom line: You have proven a hundred times that you are utterly ignorant of evolution and that you hate the truth (which is Jesus Christ according to Christians) with your whole heart. So be it. It's obvious that you have removed yourself from all rational discourse. You have chosen the path of utter delusion.

Oh, and as for that link you posted. That's to a MUSLIM SITE that claims to prove the Koran is the Word of God and the Bible is bullshit. Good work! I'm sure everything he said is true. :thumb:

Fundamentalists of all religions are equally ignorant and opposed to science and reality.

CWH
07-14-2012, 07:41 PM
Your statements are false as usual. No evolutionary scientists have any problem admitting that there are unsolved problems with evolution.

You are simply ignorant and confused. You assert that there are "flaws" in the theory of evolution, but you don't know anything about the theory at all. What are you going to do next, walk into an operating room and grab the scalpel from the hand a brain surgeon and show him how to do it? Your assertions are utterly absurd. All you are doing is showing why creationists are wrong and why they remain ignorant.

And to top it all off, you have invented a moronic mockery of my challenge for opponents to state the best evidence for their opponents thesis. I say "moronic mockery" because your challenge is not designed to discover truth, but rather to perpetuate ignorance. My challenge is designed to help people find the truth and to expose those who pretend to have truth but actually are willfully ignorant and deceptive.

Bottom line: You have proven a hundred times that you are utterly ignorant of evolution and that you hate the truth (which is Jesus Christ according to Christians) with your whole heart. So be it. It's obvious that you have removed yourself from all rational discourse. You have chosen the path of utter delusion.

Oh, and as for that link you posted. That's to a MUSLIM SITE that claims to prove the Koran is the Word of God and the Bible is bullshit. Good work! I'm sure everything he said is true. :thumb:

Fundamentalists of all religions are equally ignorant and opposed to science and reality.

I have asked a simple question but instead receive a long reply unrelated to my request. The question is :

What do evolutionists think are the Flaws in the Theory of Evolution? Is it wrong to ask this rational question so that we can understand the thinking behind the evolutionists? To seek the truth, one must see perspectives and issues in both ways. To say that the theory of Evolution have no flaw is totally BIASED. I do admit that creationism have some flaws such as the timing but will the evolutionists do likewise and admit their flaws? And when I asked why so many critics against the theory of evolution and the answer that RAM gave was they were all brainwashed and are liars etc. Why would they lie? What gain are they after? Many are the same as me questioning to find out the truth of the theory of evolution same as Rose and RAM questioning the bible God.

What's wrong with a Muslim site or an American site? The issue at hand is to hear what former evolutionists say about the theory of evolution and why they leave evolutionism. I am not anti-Muslim and I live in harmony with many Muslims in my country. I understand many Muslim's culture, lifestyle and their religion.

God Blessed.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-14-2012, 09:11 PM
I have asked a simple question but instead receive a long reply unrelated to my request. The question is :

Oh, so you want to act like the Cleverbot (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3243-AI-Cleverbot-ain-t-so-clever) again? That ain't so clever, my friend. When the Cleverbot gets stumped it starts robotically mimicking the human. That's what you are doing right now. You have refused to answer many of my questions no matter how many times I ask. You evade, dodge, falsely claim that you did answer, and change the subject. So now in your mindless robotic brain you think you are going to throw all that back in my face and pretend that I'm the one who refuses to answer questions? Fat chance.

I would be happy to answer your questions after you demonstrate that you are not just a Cleverbot. Here is what you need to do:

1) Admit that you were wrong in post #58 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47425#post47425) of this thread when you falsely asserted that the scientific report implied "500 million year old genes and no mutations." I have brought this to your attention twice and you have refused to acknowledge the question, let along admit your error.

2) Answer my questions about the video link I posted in post #11 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47118#post47118). I repeated the same questions four times but you refused to answer. Here is how I presented the questions in post #33 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47209#post47209):
What was the conclusion stated in the video?

What evidence did the scientists give to support their conclusion?

Is their conclusion supported by the evidence? If not, why not?

Please try to answer those questions with some semblance of intelligence.

3) You recently challenged me to answer a 90 minute creationist video after you refused to respond to the answers I had already given to the 9 minute video you posted in post #75 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=46949#post46949) of the What's the Best Evidence for Evolution? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution) thread. In post #82 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=46962#post46962) of that thread I showed that the video was produced by creationist liars, frauds, and deceivers. So if you want me to answer another video or any other question you present, you must first respond to the answers I have already given.

4) Demonstrate that you have any knowledge of evolution at all by presenting the best evidence for the theory in the thread called What's the Best Evidence for Evolution? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution).

5) Admit that you have been deliberately evading these questions that I have been repeating over and over and over again. I collected them all together earlier in post #59 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47426#post47426) of this thread and you ignored them all as usual. Then you tried to cover your tracks by changing the subject. Your behavior is making me think that you really are a Cleverbot. I'm not joking. I am seriously considering the possibility that I'm being hoaxed by some "clever" programmers who want to see how long it will take me to figure it out. You show no signs of any human awareness at all. You write like you are a machine that does not understand context, meaning, or trains of thought. If you are human, then please try to demonstrate this by responding intelligently to what I am saying to you.

Thanks!

:sunny:

CWH
07-17-2012, 08:13 AM
Oh, so you want to act like the Cleverbot (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3243-AI-Cleverbot-ain-t-so-clever) again? That ain't so clever, my friend. When the Cleverbot gets stumped it starts robotically mimicking the human. That's what you are doing right now. You have refused to answer many of my questions no matter how many times I ask. You evade, dodge, falsely claim that you did answer, and change the subject. So now in your mindless robotic brain you think you are going to throw all that back in my face and pretend that I'm the one who refuses to answer questions? Fat chance.

I would be happy to answer your questions after you demonstrate that you are not just a Cleverbot. Here is what you need to do:

1) Admit that you were wrong in post #58 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47425#post47425) of this thread when you falsely asserted that the scientific report implied "500 million year old genes and no mutations." I have brought this to your attention twice and you have refused to acknowledge the question, let along admit your error.

2) Answer my questions about the video link I posted in post #11 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47118#post47118). I repeated the same questions four times but you refused to answer. Here is how I presented the questions in post #33 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47209#post47209):
What was the conclusion stated in the video?

What evidence did the scientists give to support their conclusion?

Is their conclusion supported by the evidence? If not, why not?

Please try to answer those questions with some semblance of intelligence.

3) You recently challenged me to answer a 90 minute creationist video after you refused to respond to the answers I had already given to the 9 minute video you posted in post #75 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=46949#post46949) of the What's the Best Evidence for Evolution? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution) thread. In post #82 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=46962#post46962) of that thread I showed that the video was produced by creationist liars, frauds, and deceivers. So if you want me to answer another video or any other question you present, you must first respond to the answers I have already given.

4) Demonstrate that you have any knowledge of evolution at all by presenting the best evidence for the theory in the thread called What's the Best Evidence for Evolution? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution).

5) Admit that you have been deliberately evading these questions that I have been repeating over and over and over again. I collected them all together earlier in post #59 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47426#post47426) of this thread and you ignored them all as usual. Then you tried to cover your tracks by changing the subject. Your behavior is making me think that you really are a Cleverbot. I'm not joking. I am seriously considering the possibility that I'm being hoaxed by some "clever" programmers who want to see how long it will take me to figure it out. You show no signs of any human awareness at all. You write like you are a machine that does not understand context, meaning, or trains of thought. If you are human, then please try to demonstrate this by responding intelligently to what I am saying to you.

Thanks!

:sunny:

I have stopped responding to this thread anymore as I see it useless debating with stubborn people. Since the academics have been debating this issue for decades which one can find tons of it in the internet, let them debate.

I have asked many questions in this thread and have also yet to receive any reply. And I have insisted that this debate will not move on unless the opponent answer my question of what do evolutionists think are the flaws in the theory of evolution.

Cleverbot, so what? It is not for you to decide, let the readers decide. As far as I can see, everyone who is against the theory of mega-evolution is a Cleverbot,


God Blessed Creationism.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-17-2012, 09:17 AM
I have stopped responding to this thread anymore as I see it useless debating with stubborn people. Since the academics have been debating this issue for decades which one can find tons of it in the internet, let them debate.

I have asked many questions in this thread and have also yet to receive any reply. And I have insisted that this debate will not move on unless the opponent answer my question of what do evolutionists think are the flaws in the theory of evolution.

Cleverbot, so what? It is not for you to decide, let the readers decide. As far as I can see, everyone who is against the theory of mega-evolution is a Cleverbot,


God Blessed Creationism.:pray:

Nice try Cheow, but you've been exposed. Everyone can see that you refuse to answer my questions because I have exposed your errors and you know that I am right.

Have a nice day.

David M
07-18-2012, 12:50 PM
Well, we know that atoms form on their own through natural law. Consider an electron and a proton flying freely through space. If they happen to get close enough, the proton will capture the electron and spit out a photon and TADA! We have a hydrogen atom.

Hello Richard
You must explain this natural law to me. I have been catching up on some particle physics by watching some recent videos on Youtube and scientist do not know how the component parts of the atoms are made. They now say they have found the Higgs-Boson particle but apparently, it decays and is a short lived particle.

Finding any proof for String theory is ruled out by almost every physicist. The force that is gravity remains a mystery and mucks up the standard model of the atom that is widely accepted.

Theoretical Physicists are no closer to explaining how matter came into being or what it is composed of if from a single energy source.

So the question remains, did atoms self-form or were they created? Even Physicists like Dr Brian Cox who is an Evolutionists uses the term "created" when talking about the Big Bang.

Its all a mystery, so how come, we can be so definite?


David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-18-2012, 01:12 PM
Hello Richard
You must explain this natural law to me. I have been catching up on some particle physics by watching some recent videos on Youtube and scientist do not know how the component parts of the atoms are made. They now say they have found the Higgs-Boson particle but apparently, it decays and is a short lived particle.

Finding any proof for String theory is ruled out by almost every physicist. The force that is gravity remains a mystery and mucks up the standard model of the atom that is widely accepted.

Theoretical Physicists are no closer to explaining how matter came into being or what it is composed of if from a single energy source.

So the question remains, did atoms self-form or were they created? Even Physicists like Dr Brian Cox who is an Evolutionists uses the term "created" when talking about the Big Bang.

Its all a mystery, so how come, we can be so definite?


David
Hey there David,

There is no mystery about the formation of atoms. We can do it in the lab. Just take a free electron and collide it with a free proton, and TADA! you will have a hydrogen atom. Then take a hydrogen atom and collide it with another hydrogen atom and TADA! you'll have H2. The collide the H2 with an oxygen atom and you will get H2O = water. All of these processes occur through known natural laws. There is no need for any divine action at any point in this sequence of chemical evolution. It can be tested in the lab.

As for the other areas of science that are on the speculative cutting edge - what else would we expect? We've only been doing modern science like Quantum Mechanics for less than a hundred years now.

Richard

David M
07-18-2012, 02:24 PM
Hey there David,

There is no mystery about the formation of atoms. We can do it in the lab. Just take a free electron and collide it with a free proton, and TADA! you will have a hydrogen atom. Then take a hydrogen atom and collide it with another hydrogen atom and TADA! you'll have H2. The collide the H2 with an oxygen atom and you will get H2O = water. All of these processes occur through known natural laws. There is no need for any divine action at any point in this sequence of chemical evolution. It can be tested in the lab.

As for the other areas of science that are on the speculative cutting edge - what else would we expect? We've only been doing modern science like Quantum Mechanics for less than a hundred years now.

Richard

OK. Let's split atoms; it is better than splitting hairs.

How was the electron formed or the proton or the neutron or the quarks etc. that make up those components?

You have to make all the constituent parts of the hydrogen atom. I understand how atoms hydrogen atoms bond thereafter and what makes up the various atomic elements.

While you are explaining this, can you explain where gravity comes from. It seems to be eluding the scientists and does not fit in with their accepted model of the atom.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-18-2012, 04:33 PM
OK. Let's split atoms; it is better than splitting hairs.

How was the electron formed or the proton or the neutron or the quarks etc. that make up those components?

You have to make all the constituent parts of the hydrogen atom. I understand how atoms hydrogen atoms bond thereafter and what makes up the various atomic elements.

While you are explaining this, can you explain where gravity comes from. It seems to be eluding the scientists and does not fit in with their accepted model of the atom.

All the best,

David
OK - it sounds like you agree that the formation of atoms from subatomic particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons can be fully explained by natural law. That's all that's needed to move forward in this conversation. The question about the ultimate source of matter and energy would just lead us back to the Big Bang. There is only one "gap" in physics where the God hypothesis is still viable - what caused the Big Bang and established the laws of physics? But that's a purely metaphysical question in the most literal sense, since physics deals only with what can be objectively verified. Any events before the Big Bang, or even if they needed a "cause", are entirely speculative.

So let's move this conversation forward rather than backwards. Here is my conception of what we know and where God could fit in the picture. I begin with Big Bang. I think it was probably energy in the form of pure radiation (or perhaps a soup of radiation and quarks) that then cooled to produce particles like electrons, protons and neutrons. It doesn't really matter for my conception of how things got here:

BIG BANG - Maybe God did it, maybe natural law. <===================== A gap God might fill!
Formation of atoms through natural law (physics)
Formation of basic molecules like H2O through natural law (physics)
Formation of more complex molecules through natural law (chemical evolution)
Formation of self-replicating molecules (natural law? If not, then skip this step)
Formation of the first cell (God or natural law?) <====================== A gap God might fill!
Evolution of the first cell (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of species (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of humans (mutation + natural selection)

Of course, the first "gap" is not really a gap at all, since nothing precedes it. The only real gap that I see is in the formation of the first cell.

Everything that we can see and touch, including our own bodies, operate purely by natural law that we can measure, test, and verify. So it seems that the "God hypothesis" is entirely out of place in all this science and to insert him into the one gap that we can find seems rather desperate, arbitrary, and unjustified.

Remember, the only reason you are pursing this line of reasoning is because you began with a religious belief that you are seeking to justify. So the real question is "Why should we begin with such a belief?" If we just began with science and what we can actually know, the God hypothesis would never be needed.

David M
07-18-2012, 04:54 PM
So let's move this conversation forward rather than backwards. Here is my conception of what we know and where God could fit in the picture. I begin with Big Bang. I think it was probably energy in the form of pure radiation (or perhaps a soup of radiation and quarks) that then cooled to produce particles like electrons, protons and neutrons. It doesn't really matter for my conception of how things got here:

BIG BANG - Maybe God did it, maybe natural law. <===================== A gap God might fill!
Formation of atoms through natural law (physics)
Formation of basic molecules like H2O through natural law (physics)
Formation of more complex molecules through natural law (chemical evolution)
Formation of self-replicating molecules (natural law? If not, then skip this step)
Formation of the first cell (God or natural law?) <====================== A gap God might fill!
Evolution of the first cell (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of species (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of humans (mutation + natural selection)
Of course, the first "gap" is not really a gap at all, since nothing precedes it. The only real gap that I see is in the formation of the first cell.

Instead of a Gap at the Big Bang, it is an explanation that is needed. If Evolution cannot explain how the universe came into existence, then "God" can be the answer. "God" might be the answer to any question/gap that Evolution cannot give the answer to or provide the necessary proof.


Everything that we can see and touch, including our own bodies, operate purely by natural law that we can measure, test, and verify. So it seems that the "God hypothesis" is entirely out of place in all this science and to insert him into the one gap that we can find seems rather desperate, arbitrary, and unjustified.
It is not desperation on my part, but I sense a desperation on your part to eliminate God altogether.


Remember, the only reason you are pursing this line of reasoning is because you began with a religious belief that you are seeking to justify. So the real question is "Why should we begin with such a belief?" If we just began with science and what we can actually know, the God hypothesis would never be needed.
The only reason I am pursuing this is to find a balance between Evolution and Creation to explain the formation of plants and animals over a long period of time and to overcome the obstacles caused by gaps or lack of proof on the side of science.
Science does not know everything and that is why if we start as you suggest and begin with the science we know, there will come a point where science does not know the answer, and that is when we can insert God into the timeline.

If you want to start of at the beginning of say the first cell and progress from there along scientific grounds, let's see how far we get.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough
12-27-2012, 11:09 AM
OK - it sounds like you agree that the formation of atoms from subatomic particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons can be fully explained by natural law. That's all that's needed to move forward in this conversation. The question about the ultimate source of matter and energy would just lead us back to the Big Bang. There is only one "gap" in physics where the God hypothesis is still viable - what caused the Big Bang and established the laws of physics? But that's a purely metaphysical question in the most literal sense, since physics deals only with what can be objectively verified. Any events before the Big Bang, or even if they needed a "cause", are entirely speculative.

So let's move this conversation forward rather than backwards. Here is my conception of what we know and where God could fit in the picture. I begin with Big Bang. I think it was probably energy in the form of pure radiation (or perhaps a soup of radiation and quarks) that then cooled to produce particles like electrons, protons and neutrons. It doesn't really matter for my conception of how things got here:

BIG BANG - Maybe God did it, maybe natural law. <===================== A gap God might fill!
Formation of atoms through natural law (physics)
Formation of basic molecules like H2O through natural law (physics)
Formation of more complex molecules through natural law (chemical evolution)
Formation of self-replicating molecules (natural law? If not, then skip this step)
Formation of the first cell (God or natural law?) <====================== A gap God might fill!
Evolution of the first cell (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of species (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of humans (mutation + natural selection)
Of course, the first "gap" is not really a gap at all, since nothing precedes it. The only real gap that I see is in the formation of the first cell.

Instead of a Gap at the Big Bang, it is an explanation that is needed. If Evolution cannot explain how the universe came into existence, then "God" can be the answer. "God" might be the answer to any question/gap that Evolution cannot give the answer to or provide the necessary proof.

Good morning David,

By "gap" I meant "gap in our knowledge." We do not have scientific knowledge about what caused the Big Bang. An explanation would fill that "gap."

And as I said, "There is only one 'gap' in physics where the God hypothesis is still viable." The fact that creationists must focus on that one gap shows how weak their argument really is. There is nothing about the way that the universe actually functions that needs God as an answer. The God concept is viable only in areas that are currently beyond our scientific knowledge. That is the classic "God of the Gaps" argument. Here is a brief explanation (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) of this error:
"God of the gaps" is used to describe the tendency of believers to appeal to God (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God) as the cause for phenomena which human (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Human) knowledge (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Knowledge) has not yet explained. When these gaps are filled, the believer just jumps to the next gap and the game can continue ad nauseam until human knowledge is able to explain everything. The argument is an instance of the logical fallacy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) of argument from ignorance (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Nor is it a very theologically (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theology) sound argument (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument), as it has the effect of reducing and diminishing one's god over time.



One of the more prominent examples of current "God of the Gaps" thinking is the Intelligent Design (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design) movement, which claims (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Creationist_claims) that some aspects of how life (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Life) formed are impossible to explain — not only with today's scientific knowledge, but ever.

The God of the Gaps argument finds what is perhaps its most popular manifestation in ideas about first cause (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/First_cause). The argument essentially suggests that, as there is no commonly accepted theory (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theory) to completely explain the original origin of the universe (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Universe), then God (or Gods) must exist.

This is one of the oldest, and most obviously fallacious, tricks in the creationist toolkit.




Everything that we can see and touch, including our own bodies, operate purely by natural law that we can measure, test, and verify. So it seems that the "God hypothesis" is entirely out of place in all this science and to insert him into the one gap that we can find seems rather desperate, arbitrary, and unjustified.
It is not desperation on my part, but I sense a desperation on your part to eliminate God altogether.

Your senses are misleading you. I have absolutely no need to "eliminate" God in any way at all. Zero. Nada. Zilch. I would have no problem at all if some kind of God were necessary to explain the origin of the universe or the origin of the first cell. It would not give one ounce of support to your claims about the God of the Bible. Your entire line of argument is meaningless because it is absolutely impossible for you to prove that any God is necessary because you have no way to know if there might be a scientific explanation. And even if you could prove some sort of God was necessary, it would be irrelevant to our conversation because that God would have nothing to do with your claims concerning the God of the Bible who we know is not the true God for many reasons.




Remember, the only reason you are pursing this line of reasoning is because you began with a religious belief that you are seeking to justify. So the real question is "Why should we begin with such a belief?" If we just began with science and what we can actually know, the God hypothesis would never be needed.
The only reason I am pursuing this is to find a balance between Evolution and Creation to explain the formation of plants and animals over a long period of time and to overcome the obstacles caused by gaps or lack of proof on the side of science.
Science does not know everything and that is why if we start as you suggest and begin with the science we know, there will come a point where science does not know the answer, and that is when we can insert God into the timeline.

I see nothing that indicates you "want to overcome the obstacles caused by gaps." On the contrary, I see you looking for gaps so you can find a place where you can insert your preconceived God concept.



If you want to start of at the beginning of say the first cell and progress from there along scientific grounds, let's see how far we get.

OK - sounds good. The first cell was busy replicating. The process involved mutation, gene drift, inheritance, and natural selection. As time progressed, more and more diverse and complex organisms evolved. I'll let you choose which part(s) of this process you would like to explore and/or challenge.

Great chatting!

Richard

David M
07-28-2014, 05:42 PM
Here is a link to a webpage showing us this simplest living cell and the basic information.

http://www.dstoner.net/Math_Science/cell1.html

Would anyone like to make a list of the all the parts and the various molecules that are required to make one part?
The separate parts should listed in ascending order of complexity.

Once we have the simplest part, can the molecules be brought together in the laboratory to make that part? Once the easiest part has been accomplished, the second simplest part can be tackled. Bringing the parts together in an order that can be maintained while other parts have still to be made is the next challenge.

The questions about constructing a living cell are brought up at the end of the article.

Evolution and the non-existence of God has to be proven by being able to piece together a provable way in which the first simple cell came about. Maybe someone has a link to a site showing a simulation of how everything came together.

A list should be able to be put together starting with the simplest part and ending with the most complex part. We can begin with the simplest part then have to show how it is possible for the different molecules to come together and hold together while the other parts are still being formed. Once all the separate small parts are shown as possible to make, then in what order do the separate parts have to come together?

My experience of machines is that they tend to fall apart. Nuts and bolts come loose, screws drop out and the machine parts separate and the machine stops working.

Getting the parts of the simple cell to come together and work has to be done in a way that it works to produce a living cell. Expecting the parts to randomly come together would be on a par with putting the components of a simple machine in a box and shaking (vibrating) it and for the parts to randomly fly back and forth inside the box crashing into each other and somehow self assemble. It sounds impossible; so it is likely to be impossible. Getting one nut to self align to a screw thread and have the right torque applied to get the nut to turn along the thread, is as far as I know, impossible. For a nut and bolt to come together and tighten requires controlled forces. Some intelligent controller must be controlling those forces. Without the controlled force, I shall say it is impossible for an nut and bolt to come together randomly and self-tighten. I do not mind being proven wrong on that, but that is only one of many other difficult tasks required in the self-assembly of a machine. We are looking at the same thing expecting molecules to self assemble.

Chemicals, and organic molecules are different to a set of machine parts. Chemicals and molecules can combine unlike a nut and bolt coming together and self tightening. Getting the molecules to come together in the right way so they hold together and grow and become more complex is the challenge to prove possible.


In the video, 'The Statistical Impossibility of Evolution' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXIAbd8pYQM&index=66&list=PLF7102CFE1A6F5055) the probability for Evolution is calculated to be of the order; 10112,827. To get this into perspective, let's look at some large numbers.

A Googol is 1 followed by 100 zeros (1,000,000,000,.....,000) One hundred can be written 102 (to keep the number short). A Googol is 10100 or 10102
A Googolplex is the largest number given a name. It is 10googol and it is a number that is larger than the number of all the atoms in the whole universe.
A Googolplex can be written as 10Googol or 1010100 or 1010102

The probability of 10100,000 is much greater than a Googol, but far less than a Googolplex. Given that one million is 106, a billion is 109 and one thousand billion would be 1012 you can see that 10100,000 is an enormously large number and when you think that winning the lottery is of the order of 17 million to one, the odds of Evolution are miniscule. That is why it is considered to be an impossibility by statistics.

David

jce
07-28-2014, 06:51 PM
Here is a link to a webpage showing us this simplest living cell and the basic information.

http://www.dstoner.net/Math_Science/cell1.html

Would anyone like to make a list of the all the parts and the various molecules that are required to make one part?
The separate parts should listed in ascending order of complexity.

Once we have the simplest part, can the molecules be brought together in the laboratory to make that part? Once the easiest part has been accomplished, the second simplest part can be tackled. Bringing the parts together in an order that can be maintained while other parts have still to be made is the next challenge.

The questions about constructing a living cell are brought up at the end of the article.

Evolution and the non-existence of God has to be proven by being able to piece together a provable way in which the first simple cell came about. Maybe someone has a link to a site showing a simulation of how everything came together.

A list should be able to be put together starting with the simplest part and ending with the most complex part. We can begin with the simplest part then have to show how it is possible for the different molecules to come together and hold together while the other parts are still being formed. Once all the separate small parts are shown as possible to make, then in what order do the separate parts have to come together?

My experience of machines is that they tend to fall apart. Nuts and bolts come loose, screws drop out and the machine parts separate and the machine stops working.

Getting the parts of the simple cell to come together and work has to be done in a way that it works to produce a living cell. Expecting the parts to randomly come together would be on a par with putting the components of a simple machine in a box and shaking (vibrating) it and for the parts to randomly fly back and forth inside the box crashing into each other and somehow self assemble. It sounds impossible; so it is likely to be impossible. Getting one nut to self align to a screw thread and have the right torque applied to get the nut to turn along the thread, is as far as I know, impossible. For a nut and bolt to come together and tighten requires controlled forces. Some intelligent controller must be controlling those forces. Without the controlled force, I shall say it is impossible for an nut and bolt to come together randomly and self-tighten. I do not mind being proven wrong on that, but that is only one of many other difficult tasks required in the self-assembly of a machine. We are looking at the same thing expecting molecules to self assemble.

Chemicals, and organic molecules are different to a set of machine parts. Chemicals and molecules can combine unlike a nut and bolt coming together and self tightening. Getting the molecules to come together in the right way so they hold together and grow and become more complex is the challenge to prove possible.


In the video, 'The Statistical Impossibility of Evolution' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXIAbd8pYQM&index=66&list=PLF7102CFE1A6F5055) the probability for Evolution is calculated to be of the order; 10112,827. To get this into perspective, let's look at some large numbers.

A Googol is 1 followed by 100 zeros (1,000,000,000,.....,000) One hundred can be written 102 (to keep the number short). A Googol is 10100 or 10102
A Googolplex is the largest number given a name. It is 10googol and it is a number that is larger than the number of all the atoms in the whole universe.
A Googolplex can be written as 10Googol or 1010100 or 1010102

The probability of 10100,000 is much greater than a Googol, but far less than a Googolplex. Given that one million is 106, a billion is 109 and one thousand billion would be 1012 you can see that 10100,000 is an enormously large number and when you think that winning the lottery is of the order of 17 million to one, the odds of Evolution are miniscule. That is why it is considered to be an impossibility by statistics.

David


Hello again David

The mathematical probabilities for chance construction of a cell reminds me of Richard's exquisite presentation that concludes Chapter 3 of the Bible Wheel Book. Here are Richard's own words...

"Never in the history of the world has anyone beheld such a profoundly compact and reiterative compound symbol in the structure of any book, let alone a book that proclaims itself Divine, that defines and exemplifies the symbols in its own text, that was composed in three languages over a period of fifteen hundred years by multiple individuals from all walks of life, that transformed the world with its message, and that kept its secret hidden for centuries after its completion only to be revealed when it was simply "rolled up like a scroll" on the alphabetic pattern established within its own pages! Obviously, we are beholding a blazing immutable miracle straight from the Mind of Almighty God".

I think Richard could repeat that last bold phrase in appreciation of the living cell!


Even though Richard still sells the book, he has generously shared this divine revelation from God on the web, free of charge I think. You can find here http://www.biblewheel.com/Book/Chapters/Chapt01.php.


John

L67
07-28-2014, 07:19 PM
H

Evolution and the non-existence of God has to be proven by being able to piece together a provable way in which the first simple cell came about. Maybe someone has a link to a site showing a simulation of how everything came together.

Why do you come up with such silly crap? We don't need to know how the first simple cell came about to prove evolution. Evolution does NOT explain how life came to be. It is the process AFTER life has begun. Good grief.




In the video, 'The Statistical Impossibility of Evolution' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXIAbd8pYQM&index=66&list=PLF7102CFE1A6F5055) the probability for Evolution is calculated to be of the order; 10112,827. To get this into perspective, let's look at some large numbers.

That video is for boneheads who know NOTHING about evolution. That speaker tries to come up with the statistical probability of evolution and he can't even represent what evolution is. Starting at 3:10 into the video the speaker says you have to have faith to believe evolution.:rolleyes: Evolution is nothing like creation. It has been proven 10,000 times over, we have evidence for it. And the ignorant speaker (like you David) lumps how life came to be with evolution. It doesn't get any dumber than that.


How can you prove the statistical improbability of evolution, when you don't even know what the theory of evolution is?

It's no wonder your mind is polluted with garbage. You actually believe these guys.

David M
07-28-2014, 07:48 PM
Hello again David

The mathematical probabilities for chance construction of a cell reminds me of Richard's exquisite presentation that concludes Chapter 3 of the Bible Wheel Book. Here are Richard's own words...

"Never in the history of the world has anyone beheld such a profoundly compact and reiterative compound symbol in the structure of any book, let alone a book that proclaims itself Divine, that defines and exemplifies the symbols in its own text, that was composed in three languages over a period of fifteen hundred years by multiple individuals from all walks of life, that transformed the world with its message, and that kept its secret hidden for centuries after its completion only to be revealed when it was simply "rolled up like a scroll" on the alphabetic pattern established within its own pages! Obviously, we are beholding a blazing immutable miracle straight from the Mind of Almighty God".

I think Richard could repeat that last bold phrase in appreciation of the living cell!


Even though Richard still sells the book, he has generously shared this divine revelation from God on the web, free of charge I think. You can find here http://www.biblewheel.com/Book/Chapters/Chapt01.php.


John
Hello John

I know Richard thinks the possibility of God so small as to be non-existent. It is not appreciated that we are entitled to consider the possibility of Evolution so small as to be non-existent.

The moment God is acknowledged in the smallest of ways, it opens up a discussion of what God can do. Richard used the excuse that it would be a waste of time to go down that road. Therefore, to Richard and L67, God does not exist.

Evolution is not compatible with the Bible. If God made the first living cell and then left it at that, then we would have no Bible; no revealed word from God. The Bible tells us of God's purpose with this earth and Evolution does not fit in with that. How does the Son of God come from Evolution?

L67 wants us to believe Evolution starts from the first living cell. If there is no God who created the Universe and created the earth with the conditions for the first living cell to kick-start Evolution, then without God, an explanation has to be given starting from atoms. That is leaving out the explanation of how atoms came about.

Evolutionists have to explain Evolution from the Big Bang, because there is no alternative. The only alternative is God and to concede that means you have to accept Creation. There is no in-between.

All the best
David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-28-2014, 07:57 PM
Chemicals, and organic molecules are different to a set of machine parts. Chemicals and molecules can combine unlike a nut and bolt coming together and self tightening. Getting the molecules to come together in the right way so they hold together and grow and become more complex is the challenge to prove possible.

Hey there David,

Your comment seems to indicate that you have never heard of the SCIENCE called CHEMISTRY. Here is the definition from the wiki:

Chemistry, a branch of physical science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_science), is the study of the composition, structure, properties and change of matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry#cite_note-definition-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry#cite_note-2) Chemistry is chiefly concerned with atoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom) and molecules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule) and their interactions and transformations, for example, the properties of the chemical bonds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond) formed between atoms to create chemical compounds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound). As such, chemistry studies the involvement ofelectrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron) and various forms of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy) in photochemical reactions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemical_reaction), oxidation-reduction reactions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox), changes in phases of matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition), and separation of mixtures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_process). Preparation and properties of complex substances, such as alloys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alloy), polymers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer), biological molecules, andpharmaceutical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical) agents are considered in specialized fields of chemistry.

Chemistry is sometimes called the central science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_central_science) because it bridges other natural sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_sciences) like physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), geology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology) and biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry#cite_note-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry#cite_note-4) Chemistry is a branch of physical science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_science) but distinct from physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_between_chemistry_and_physics).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry#cite_note-5)

Chemistry is the study of how basic elements react with each other and combine to form new chemical compounds and complex molecules. It is a primary example of how matter EVOLVES through NATURAL LAW by interacting with other matter. Chemical evolution is OBSERVED IN THE LABORATORY every day. Chemistry works without any hint of a supernatural agent having to "put the pieces together." There is no OBSERVABLE FACT about any biological organism that cannot be explained by natural law. The only question concerns the origin of the first cell, which cannot be directly observed and so remains a matter of speculation. And as such, that question cannot provide any evidence for God. It is simply an unknown at this time. But note: given the fact that religion has never advanced science one iota, there is no reason to think the situation would be any different in this case.



In the video, 'The Statistical Impossibility of Evolution' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXIAbd8pYQM&index=66&list=PLF7102CFE1A6F5055) the probability for Evolution is calculated to be of the order; 10112,827. To get this into perspective, let's look at some large numbers.

I watched that video. That number is total bullshit and the people who fooled you are nothing but corrupt creationist LIARS.

Their "calculations" totally ignored CHEMISTRY- the science that "bridges" physics and biology!!! They talked about the chemicals being "put together" in "random order" as if there were no NATURAL LAWS OF CHEMISTRY affecting how they combined. The same calculations would imply that God himself must design each every snowflake because the probability that they would form a perfect hexagon would astronomically small by "random chance." This is how they deceived you. They knew they were lying because they have a science background, and so KNOW that chemicals combine in accordance with NATURAL LAW. We observe chemicals interacting and forming new chemicals every day. It is fully established HARD SCIENCE. Those people are corrupt to the core. Wicked servants of darkness deceiving simple-minded ignorant and gullible believers. It is pathetic beyond words. That one video was filled with deliberate deception from beginning to end.

If you want to support your religious beliefs, you are going to have to find some real science to back it up.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
07-28-2014, 08:13 PM
Given that David just posted a video with an extremely DECEPTIVE claim that totally ignored the solid fact of CHEMICAL EVOLUTION through NATURAL LAW, I felt it would be a good idea to repeat this post from 7/18/2012 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47647#post47647) (just a few posts earlier in this thread, we've had a long break) where he appeared to acknowledged the FACT of chemical evolution:



OK. Let's split atoms; it is better than splitting hairs.

How was the electron formed or the proton or the neutron or the quarks etc. that make up those components?

You have to make all the constituent parts of the hydrogen atom. I understand how atoms hydrogen atoms bond thereafter and what makes up the various atomic elements.

While you are explaining this, can you explain where gravity comes from. It seems to be eluding the scientists and does not fit in with their accepted model of the atom.

All the best,

David
OK - it sounds like you agree that the formation of atoms from subatomic particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons can be fully explained by natural law. That's all that's needed to move forward in this conversation. The question about the ultimate source of matter and energy would just lead us back to the Big Bang. There is only one "gap" in physics where the God hypothesis is still viable - what caused the Big Bang and established the laws of physics? But that's a purely metaphysical question in the most literal sense, since physics deals only with what can be objectively verified. Any events before the Big Bang, or even if they needed a "cause", are entirely speculative.

So let's move this conversation forward rather than backwards. Here is my conception of what we know and where God could fit in the picture. I begin with Big Bang. I think it was probably energy in the form of pure radiation (or perhaps a soup of radiation and quarks) that then cooled to produce particles like electrons, protons and neutrons. It doesn't really matter for my conception of how things got here:

BIG BANG - Maybe God did it, maybe natural law. <===================== A gap God might fill!
Formation of atoms through natural law (physics)
Formation of basic molecules like H2O through natural law (physics)
Formation of more complex molecules through natural law (chemical evolution)
Formation of self-replicating molecules (natural law? If not, then skip this step)
Formation of the first cell (God or natural law?) <====================== A gap God might fill!
Evolution of the first cell (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of species (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of humans (mutation + natural selection)

Of course, the first "gap" is not really a gap at all, since nothing precedes it. The only real gap that I see is in the formation of the first cell.

Everything that we can see and touch, including our own bodies, operate purely by natural law that we can measure, test, and verify. So it seems that the "God hypothesis" is entirely out of place in all this science and to insert him into the one gap that we can find seems rather desperate, arbitrary, and unjustified.

Remember, the only reason you are pursing this line of reasoning is because you began with a religious belief that you are seeking to justify. So the real question is "Why should we begin with such a belief?" If we just began with science and what we can actually know, the God hypothesis would never be needed.

David M
07-28-2014, 08:53 PM
Hello Richard


Your comment seems to indicate that you have never heard of the SCIENCE called CHEMISTRYI have a qualification in Chemistry, so I am not completely ignorant of the subject.


Chemical evolution is OBSERVED IN THE LABORATORY every day That is not so. No Evolution takes place in the Laboratory because it is man controlling things like the environment of chemicals. Take man away and what is the probability of those chemicals coming together under the same laboratory conditions? Put a probability figure against that. The chemicals do their thing, but the chemicals have to be brought into contact with each other under certain conditions and that is under man's control. Man is bringing chemicals together in ways that might never occur naturally.


I watched that video. That number is total bullshit and the people who fooled you are nothing but corrupt creationist LIARS.There you go again, why should anyone think you are not a liar. You just said; "Chemical evolution is OBSERVED IN THE LABORATORY every day". That sentence can be picked apart and the words alone are a lie. "Every day"? Man's intervention and creativity is not Evolution. How many plastics have been discovered in nature? Please give a number as fact (out of interest).


Their "calculations" totally ignored CHEMISTRY- the science that "bridges" physics and biology!!! They talked about the chemicals being "put together" in "random order" as if there were no NATURAL LAWS OF CHEMISTRY affecting how they combined. The same calculations would imply that God himself must design each every snowflake because the probability that they would form a perfect hexagon would astronomically small by "random chance." This is how they deceived you. They knew they were lying because they have a science background, and so KNOW that chemicals combine in accordance with NATURAL LAW. We observe chemicals interacting and forming new chemicals every day. It is fully established HARD SCIENCE. Those people are corrupt to the core. Wicked servants of darkness deceiving simple-minded ignorant and gullible believers. It is pathetic beyond words. That one video was filled with deliberate deception from beginning to end.You have no proof of chemicals coming together naturally to form all the different molecules leading to the building blocks of life. The conditions on earth had to be right, before life could be sustained. What is the probability of the son and the earth and everything being in the ratio it is to support life.

There are a great number of probabilities you are ignoring. To each of those probabilities a probability figure applies, but how it is calculated is where the difficulty lies. Is there a probability of other life on planets existing only because there is life on this earth? It is assumed that if a similar sized star to our sun is found and it happens to have a planet, there is a chance of life on it. There is no proof of other life. If the conditions on earth are so unique that there is no other life in the Universe, how can one put a probability against that?


If you want to support your religious beliefs, you are going to have to find some real science to back it up. How can science back up my belief? Science has no explanation for miracles. Miracles are supernatural showing the Creator has power over his creation. No amount of science is going to back up the resurrection of Jesus. Science cannot prove God is working in the Kingdoms of men.

All the best
David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-28-2014, 10:14 PM
That is not so. No Evolution takes place in the Laboratory because it is man controlling things like the environment of chemicals. Take man away and what is the probability of those chemicals coming together under the same laboratory conditions? Put a probability figure against that. The chemicals do their thing, but the chemicals have to be brought into contact with each other under certain conditions and that is under man's control. Man is bringing chemicals together in ways that might never occur naturally.

Hey there David,

You took the term "chemical evolution" in a sense I did not intend. I was talking about the evolution of complex chemicals from atoms. This should have been clear since I explained it to you in post #82 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47647#post47647) in this thread (in 2012) and repeated that explanation in my last post (before you posted the comment to which I am responding). I guess you didn't remember the conversation and didn't see my recent repetition of it. So here it is again. This is what I mean by "chemical evolution" - (note that I used that exact phrase in my explanation):



OK. Let's split atoms; it is better than splitting hairs.

How was the electron formed or the proton or the neutron or the quarks etc. that make up those components?

You have to make all the constituent parts of the hydrogen atom. I understand how atoms hydrogen atoms bond thereafter and what makes up the various atomic elements.

While you are explaining this, can you explain where gravity comes from. It seems to be eluding the scientists and does not fit in with their accepted model of the atom.

All the best,

David
OK - it sounds like you agree that the formation of atoms from subatomic particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons can be fully explained by natural law. That's all that's needed to move forward in this conversation. The question about the ultimate source of matter and energy would just lead us back to the Big Bang. There is only one "gap" in physics where the God hypothesis is still viable - what caused the Big Bang and established the laws of physics? But that's a purely metaphysical question in the most literal sense, since physics deals only with what can be objectively verified. Any events before the Big Bang, or even if they needed a "cause", are entirely speculative.

So let's move this conversation forward rather than backwards. Here is my conception of what we know and where God could fit in the picture. I begin with Big Bang. I think it was probably energy in the form of pure radiation (or perhaps a soup of radiation and quarks) that then cooled to produce particles like electrons, protons and neutrons. It doesn't really matter for my conception of how things got here:

BIG BANG - Maybe God did it, maybe natural law. <===================== A gap God might fill!
Formation of atoms through natural law (physics)
Formation of basic molecules like H2O through natural law (physics)
Formation of more complex molecules through natural law (chemical evolution)
Formation of self-replicating molecules (natural law? If not, then skip this step)
Formation of the first cell (God or natural law?) <====================== A gap God might fill!
Evolution of the first cell (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of species (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of humans (mutation + natural selection)

Of course, the first "gap" is not really a gap at all, since nothing precedes it. The only real gap that I see is in the formation of the first cell.

Everything that we can see and touch, including our own bodies, operate purely by natural law that we can measure, test, and verify. So it seems that the "God hypothesis" is entirely out of place in all this science and to insert him into the one gap that we can find seems rather desperate, arbitrary, and unjustified.

Remember, the only reason you are pursing this line of reasoning is because you began with a religious belief that you are seeking to justify. So the real question is "Why should we begin with such a belief?" If we just began with science and what we can actually know, the God hypothesis would never be needed.

Now I can understand how you could get confused. The term "chemical evolution" in the context of abiogensis (which is being discussed in this thread) usually refers to the evolution of inorganic chemicals into organic chemicals. But that was obviously NOT my point since only an ignorant fool (or liar) would say that was being observed every day! Here is an example of the different meanings the phrase "chemical evolution" carries (source (http://evolution.about.com/od/LifeOrigins/a/Understanding-Chemical-Evolution.htm)). The meaning I meant is highlighted in red:
The term "chemical evolution" can be used in many different ways depending on the context of the words. If you are speaking to an astronomer, then it could be a discussion about how new elements are formed during supernovas. Chemists may believe chemical evolution pertains to how oxygen or hydrogen gases "evolve" out of some types of chemical reactions. In evolutionary biology, on the other hand, the term "chemical evolution" most often is used to describe the hypothesis that organic building blocks of life were created when inorganic molecules came together. Sometimes called abiogenesis, chemical evolution could be how life started on Earth.
Note that the definition accurately states that "chemical evolution" in the sense used in evolutionary biology is a HYPOTHESIS. Again, it should be obvious that I did not intend that meaning when I said it was being observed in laboratories every day. I was talking about all the chemical REACTIONS by which one set of chemicals combine through natural law to change (evolve) into another kind. This most definitely is observed every day by millions of scientists.



There you go again, why should anyone think you are not a liar. You just said; "Chemical evolution is OBSERVED IN THE LABORATORY every day". That sentence can be picked apart and the words alone are a lie. "Every day"? Man's intervention and creativity is not Evolution. How many plastics have been discovered in nature? Please give a number as fact (out of interest).

I trust we have this cleared up now. Please acknowledge that you understand I was not lying.



You have no proof of chemicals coming together naturally to form all the different molecules leading to the building blocks of life. The conditions on earth had to be right, before life could be sustained. What is the probability of the son and the earth and everything being in the ratio it is to support life.

I never said that I had any proof of that! I said that it was a hypothesis, and have even admitted (many times) that it is possible that a god did it. You know this because I've told you many times.

Nobody knows what the a priori probability might be, but that's totally irrelevant because no matter how improbable, the probability is obviously greater than zero so it is possible, and we know that it happened either by chance or design. So it's a meaningless question that would prove nothing. Improbable things happen all the time. What is the probability that you get any specific set of five cards hand in a game of poker? Exactly the same as the probability that you get a Royal Flush. This is one of the most common cognitive errors relating to statistics. It's very strange that it is so popular amongst creationists since it has been refuted so many times by so many people in so many ways.



There are a great number of probabilities you are ignoring. To each of those probabilities a probability figure applies, but how it is calculated is where the difficulty lies. Is there a probability of other life on planets existing only because there is life on this earth? It is assumed that if a similar sized star to our sun is found and it happens to have a planet, there is a chance of life on it. There is no proof of other life. If the conditions on earth are so unique that there is no other life in the Universe, how can one put a probability against that?

And that's why the point is totally moot. We have no idea what the "probability" might be because we can see only a tiny portion of the universe. We have no idea if life is as common as dirt or rare or unique to earth. And since neither you nor I have any knowledge on this point, it is pointless to try to use it as proof of anything.

Great chatting!

Richard

:sunny:

David M
07-29-2014, 04:18 AM
Hello Richard



I trust we have this cleared up now. Please acknowledge that you understand I was not lying. I was not saying you were lying, or intended to lie, but your sentence could be picked apart and made to look like a lie. We have to be so precise about our words on this forum or we can be taken to task about almost anything we write.
I could still take you to task, but since according to Kaku every mating producing offspring is an evolutionary step, that gives you a get out. Is what Kaku says, true? That is hard to prove. Genetic variation in the color of eyes for example, I do not regard as an evolutionary step. If all eyes started off as brown and because of some evolutionary advantage, or chance mutation, blue eyes were favored, then brown eyes would have faded out. If there is no advantage to having brown eyes, or blue eyes, then the variation that arose was not an evolutionary step progressing towards something. Genetic diversity does not prove Evolution. Science is trying to find links between similarities in different species that might not exist. As I see it, Creation has built-in genetic variation. Over time that variation for whatever reason is not changing for the better and is complying with the law of entropy in which chaos and disorder increase. When all things are possible with God, then God can fix/restore any situation. There has been ample time for the best color eye giving an evolutionary advantage to have been established. Some variation does not mean evolution. If we flip a coin and we see heads or tails, the coin is not evolving, it is simply changing its appearance.


I never said that I had any proof of that! I said that it was a hypothesis, and have even admitted (many times) that it is possible that a god did it. You know this because I've told you many times.That is what I have said and nothing more; you have admitted many times that it is possible God did it. I am not saying anything different. As I said in another post recently, there is no middle ground. I think you (Richard) have to say; there is no possibility God exists, now that you have no faith in God. The moment you allow for the possibility (no matter how small), it begs the question, what else could God possibly have done? You will not go there. God exists, or he does not, there is no middle ground or possibility.


Nobody knows what the a priori probability might be, but that's totally irrelevant because no matter how improbable, the probability is obviously greater than zero so it is possible, and we know that it happened either by chance or design. So it's a meaningless question that would prove nothing. Improbable things happen all the time. What is the probability that you get any specific set of five cards hand in a game of poker? Exactly the same as the probability that you get a Royal Flush. This is one of the most common cognitive errors relating to statistics. It's very strange that it is so popular amongst creationists since it has been refuted so many times by so many people in so many ways. I think in view of my conclusion stated in answer to the paragraph above, we have to either say the probability of God's existence is 100%, or it is 0%. There is no probability in between. You have to be on one side or the other and we are on opposite sides.


And that's why the point is totally moot. We have no idea what the "probability" might be because we can see only a tiny portion of the universe. We have no idea if life is as common as dirt or rare or unique to earth. And since neither you nor I have any knowledge on this point, it is pointless to try to use it as proof of anything. Probability proves nothing; OK. When there is probability for something, hence a probability factor above zero that means that something is possible. Is there anything which is impossible? If there is some very small probability that God exists, then what the Bible reveals about God has the possibility of being true, even this (Matt 19:26); with God all things are possible. That is what you concede when you say; there is a possibility (no matter how small) of God existing.

All the best
David

jce
07-29-2014, 07:07 AM
Hey there David,

I watched that video. That number is total bullshit and the people who fooled you are nothing but corrupt creationist LIARS.

Their "calculations" totally ignored CHEMISTRY- the science that "bridges" physics and biology!!! They talked about the chemicals being "put together" in "random order" as if there were no NATURAL LAWS OF CHEMISTRY affecting how they combined. The same calculations would imply that God himself must design each every snowflake because the probability that they would form a perfect hexagon would astronomically small by "random chance." This is how they deceived you. They knew they were lying because they have a science background, and so KNOW that chemicals combine in accordance with NATURAL LAW. We observe chemicals interacting and forming new chemicals every day. It is fully established HARD SCIENCE. Those people are corrupt to the core. Wicked servants of darkness deceiving simple-minded ignorant and gullible believers. It is pathetic beyond words. That one video was filled with deliberate deception from beginning to end.

If you want to support your religious beliefs, you are going to have to find some real science to back it up.

All the best,

Richard

Richard

You build on the foundation of presupposition, that life and information pre-existed. The main point to be made is not by questioning the ability of the chemical agents to react in a manner that that enables molecular construction. The real question is from whence came the instruction set? When expounding on the amazing qualities of the elemental building blocks, how is it that the "why it works" question is routinely avoided by evolutionists?

Also, since you so quickly dismiss the probability numbers against evolution arising on its own as BS, what number would you insert for the probability that this extremely complicated process, enormously dependent upon information rich molecules, would arise of its own accord by chance? Perhaps you as a mathematician in search of truth would have at least checked on these odds to ensure you are not on the wrong path.

Watch this short excerpt from a video interview between John Mackay and Dr. Ed Neeland, a chemical engineer and Professor of Synthetic Chemistry at the University of BC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLGrxGBO364


Don't you just love Truth? It really is inescapable.

John

(Edited to correct the hyperlink to the interview)

Richard Amiel McGough
07-29-2014, 07:47 AM
Richard

You build on the foundation of presupposition, that life and information pre-existed. The main point to be made is not by questioning the ability of the chemical agents to react in a manner that that enables molecular construction. The real question is from whence came the instruction set? When expounding on the amazing qualities of the elemental building blocks, how is it that the "why it works" question is routinely avoided by evolutionists?

Good morning John,

Your comment seems very confused. I have never written a word that would suggest I presuppose that "life and information pre-existed." Where did you get that idea?

I agree that the evolution of information is an important point, but it cannot be properly understood outside of the context of of the whole sequence of processes governed by natural law, as I laid out in as follows in a previous post:

BIG BANG - Maybe God did it, maybe natural law. <====================== A gap God might fill!
Formation of atoms through natural law (physics)
Formation of basic molecules like H2O through natural law (physics)
Formation of more complex molecules through natural law (chemical evolution)
Formation of self-replicating molecules (natural law? If not, then skip this step)
Formation of the first cell (God or natural law?) <====================== A gap God might fill!
Evolution of the first cell (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of species (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of humans (mutation + natural selection)

Creationists focus on questions about "origins" because it is the only GAP in our scientific knowledge that would allow a place for god. This is called the "God of the Gaps" argument and it is fundamentally wrong headed.

As for building on a "foundation of presupposition" - I think you should get a mirror. You begin with utterly unjustified presuppositions about the Bible and God and then reject solid science (and hence reality) when it contradicts your presuppositions.


Also, since you so quickly dismiss the probability numbers against evolution arising on its own as BS, what number would you insert for the probability that this extremely complicated process, enormously dependent upon information rich molecules, would arise of its own accord by chance? Perhaps you as a mathematician in search of truth would have at least checked on these odds to ensure you are not on the wrong path.

Watch this short excerpt from a video interview between John Mackay and Dr. Ed Neeland, a chemical engineer and Professor of Synthetic Chemistry at the University of BC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLGrxGBO364


Don't you just love Truth? It really is inescapable.

John

(Edited to correct the hyperlink to the interview)
Are you saying that you still cannot see their DECEPTION even after I explained it??? Wow.

My rejection of their BS has nothing to do with what probability I would put on the process. We can't even discuss that yet because the process has yet to even be properly defined. This is typical of corrupt creationists. They carefully avoid careful definition so they can deceive their audiences. They are spewing out total CRAP and feeding it to blind deceived and gullible followers. That's why I have such a strong reaction. I hate deceivers, especially those who deceive in the name of truth! This is why I say that religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. Religious dogmas breed a contempt for the truth even as the victims are brainwashed to believe that they are serving the truth. Nothing could be more pathetic.

I'm late for work. I'll watch the video as time permits.

Great chatting,

Richard

:sunny:

Gambini
07-29-2014, 02:37 PM
Hey Richard :yo:

You said "I agree that the evolution of information is an important point, but it cannot be properly understood outside of the context of the whole sequence of processes governed by natural law"

BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT, DUDE LOL! You're introducing an AD HOC hypothesis into the equation. Intelligent design is the *NATURAL* explanation for the origin of life. So in order to AVOID that *NATURAL* explanation, you're arguing there is some *UNKNOWN* law of chemistry that would force lifeless chemicals to self-organize itself into life. Comparing the formation of amino acids to the formation of a living cell (or even a single protein) is utterly absurd!!! And here's the key point ...

Since you're introducing an *UNKNOWN* into the equation (in order to avoid the *NATURAL* explanation of intelligent design), then THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU to demonstrate that there actually IS some freaky law of chemistry that forced lifeless chemicals to self-organize into the first living cell. Intelligent design is the default because we *KNOW* a superior intelligence would have the ability to create physical life from lifeless matter.



"Creationists focus on questions about "origins" because it is the only GAP in our scientific knowledge that would allow a place for god. This is called the "God of the Gaps" argument and it is fundamentally wrong headed"

You and Rose really need to stop repeating this LIE (which I know you never will). I already demonstrated you're wrong on this point and yet you, and Rose, keep repeating it. The arguments for God have absolutely NOTHING to do with "gaps". They are syllogistically deduced from that which we KNOW (based on EVIDENCE)!!! Please get that in your system because you keep repeating this "gap" bullshit. Here's an example of 6 arguments for God that have NOTHING to do with what we don't know and EVERYTHING to do with what we DO know ...



1) The argument from the origin of the universe. This argument is based on the *EVIDENCE* for the finitude of time, space, matter and energy. If it were a solid brutal fact that the entire natural world had a literal beginning ex nihilo, that would be 100% PROOF of an infinite and eternally existing reality that is immaterial, omnipresent and who brought the entire natural world into being. But there isn't PROOF of an absolute origin of time, space, matter and energy. RATHER, the *EVIDENCE* is in FAVOR of an absolute origin of time, space, matter and energy. Hence, the *EVIDENCE* supports theism. Do you deny that the *EVIDENCE* supports the absolute origin of time, space, matter and energy??? If you do, you're a liar. *ALL* of the cosmological *EVIDENCE* supports an absolute beginning whereas NONE of it supports an eternal past. That's what I mean when I say the argument is based on what we KNOW (it is syllogistically deduced from premises that are supported by *EVIDENCE*) ...

And btw, the very FIRST question I ask anyone who asks me for evidence of God is whether they would consider an absolute ex nihilo origin of the entire natural world as evidence for a God. If they answer no, then I already know I'm dealing with someone who would refuse ANY AND ALL evidence for a God. If you're willing to believe everything can literally come from nothing just to avoid any theistic implications, then you will dismiss ANYTHING to avoid any theistic implications. There's no sense in arguing with someone who is that irrational.



2) The argument from finetuning. The *EVIDENCE* supports the view that the universal constants of nature are incomprehensibly finetuned for not just life, but even STARS and ATOMS. Penrose has demonstrated (and nobody has refuted it) with raw math that the odds of the entire earth (with all the people and technology on it included) randomly forming INSTANTLY is INCOMPREHENSIBLY more likely than the odds of the entropy of the universe randomly forming. So why don't we see giraffe brains forming instantly on our kitchen tables??? That is INCOMPREHENSIBLY more likely. The very fact we don't observe such bizarre occurrences is actually EVIDENCE (bordering on proof even) the finetuned entropy value did not form randomly. And there are over 30 universal constants that need to be finetuned with incredible precision. Another example is inflation ... Cosmologists Sean Carrol and Heywood Tam demonstrated in 2010 that the random chance of an inflationary process producing a stable cosmology is 1 in 10 to the 660,000,000th Power ...

Your only escape hatchet here is to claim the finetuned values of the universe are what they are by necessity. But this also fails because for one, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on you to demonstrate that is the case because we have ZERO evidence of ANYTHING regarding the physical nature of the universe being static in its nature whereas we have trillions and trillions of examples showing things in nature could have been otherwise. Second of all, we have *EVIDENCE* from alternative mathematical models showing the constants of nature could have been otherwise. And thirdly, even if it were the case that the constants are necessarily what they are, that only begs the question of why the universal constants of nature exist in such a way that they NECESSARILY support (and eventually results in) the creation of atoms, stars and sentient life (in other words, it would still point to a theistic worldview).



3) The argument from the origin of life. This is rooted in the FACT that the *LAW* of probability shows life CANNOT form randomly from lifeless chemicals AND the FACT that there is no known law of chemistry that would force lifeless chemicals to self-organize into a single protein (nevermind DNA or a living cell). Hence, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on you to demonstrate this unknown freaky law of chemistry that you speak of. I mean, you can't just assert that maybe the earth is being held up by an unseen chain of elephant trunks and expect to be taken serious, right? The ball is in your court to show that chemistry forces the origin of life by chemical necessity. Otherwise you're just making an ad hoc assertion to avoid the implications ...

And this logically leads to theism because an infinite regression of intelligent beings is logically impossible. Further, if life on earth is not the product of random chance or chemical law, then you have absolutely no justification whatsoever to assert that it somehow did on another hypothetical world.



4) The argument from the mathematical design at the very root of life, which PRECEDES any natural selection. For example, a paper by Miloje M. Rakocevic entitled "Genetic Code As A Harmonic System" shows that the very amino acids of life are MATHEMATICALLY ARRANGED according to the GAUSS ALGORITHM. Another paper by Vladimir I. ScHerbak and Maxim A. Makukov shows that the nucleons in the genome are MATHEMATICALLY ARRANGED according to each of the triple repdigits (111 through 999). Interestingly, the sum of the triple repdigits = The sum of the entire Hebrew alphabet.



5) The argument from optimization at the very root of life, which PRECEDES any natural selection. A paper by Gayle K. Philip and Stephen J. Freeland entitled "Did Evolution Select A Nonrandom Alphabet Of Amino Acids?" shows that the very amino acids of life are OPTIMAL when placed against a MILLION randomly chosen sets of amino acids. This completely dismantles the idea that the origin of life isn't rooted in a superior intelligence. It's one thing to say some unknown freaky chemical law forced lifeless chemicals to self-organize into life, but to say that unknown law just happens to produce an OPTIMAL SET of amino acids is pure insanity (better yet, willful denial of anything even hinting at an intelligent origin of life) ...

A 2014 study from the University of Glasgow (published in Nature Communications) shows that Protein vibrations are OPTIMIZED for interaction (the ringing motion is "finetuned" to last ONE MILLIONTH of ONE MILLIONTH of a second, which is PERFECT for the most EFFICIENT reaction) and this OPTIMIZED function had to be in place BEFORE life began (which means natural selection CANNOT be used to explain it).



6) The argument from genetic information in DNA. This is rooted in the FACT that any message that is conveyed through ASYMMETRIC SPECIFICITY is *ALWAYS* the result of INTELLIGENCE. DNA conveys a message through ASYMMETRIC SPECIFICITY. That is a FACT. Hence, DNA is the result of an INTELLIGENCE (a SUPERIOR intelligence). None of this has anything to do with what we don't know. It is logically deduced from what we DO know. Can you give me an example in nature of ASYMMETRIC SPECIFICITY arising without an intelligence??? And don't tell me genetic mutations + natural selection because you would be arguing in a circle. We know that DNA exists. You're claiming it arose without an intelligence but there is NOTHING in nature that conveys information through ASYMMETRIC SPECIFICITY.



Again, the arguments for God are logically deduced from premises with supporting *EVIDENCE*. You really need to drop this "gap" nonsense. And notice ...

I'm actually the nicest guy in the world. Why? Because IT'S NOT MY JOB to give you evidence for God. General theism is the default position. Atheists are in the exact same position as solipsists. Is it MY JOB to demonstrate the physical world exists? Hell no. The solipsist has to demonstrate to me that the physical world doesn't exist because it is UNIVERSALLY self-evident that the physical world exists. And there are just as many solipsists (over 1 billion) as there are atheists. So theism is as self-evident as the physical world. The huge majority of theists believe in a God FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON that people believe the physical world exists. Namely, it is OBVIOUS (to them). Nontheists are no different than solipsists.



Take care, Sir Richard :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-29-2014, 07:11 PM
Hey Richard :yo:

You said "I agree that the evolution of information is an important point, but it cannot be properly understood outside of the context of the whole sequence of processes governed by natural law"

BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT, DUDE LOL! You're introducing an AD HOC hypothesis into the equation. Intelligent design is the *NATURAL* explanation for the origin of life. So in order to AVOID that *NATURAL* explanation, you're arguing there is some *UNKNOWN* law of chemistry that would force lifeless chemicals to self-organize itself into life. Comparing the formation of amino acids to the formation of a living cell (or even a single protein) is utterly absurd!!! And here's the key point ...

Hey there Gamini, :yo:

First, you totally missed my point. Look around at reality. Is there any observable physical process, such as gravity, electricity, or chemistry that requires a "god" to explain. Nope. Nada. Zilch. Thus, the NATURAL explanation of all physical phenomena is that it is the result of NATURAL LAW! Duh! :p

But your appeal to "natural" beliefs is absurd, because ignorant people "naturally" believe all sorts of things that are FALSE. The fact that a belief might feel "natural" has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. Take quantum physics for example. It is entirely counter-intuitive, yet it as far as we can tell, it is true. The same goes for special relativity with its non-intuitive time dilation and length contraction. Your appeal to the "naturalness" of your religious dogmas is utterly meaningless.

And I have not introduced any "ad hoc" explanation for anything. On the contrary, I presented the evidence that there is no place, let alone requirement, for any presupposition about any god in most of our understanding of how the universe evolved from the Big Bang to present time. Here again is the CONTEXT of my comments:

BIG BANG - Maybe God did it, maybe natural law. <====================== A gap God might fill!
Formation of atoms through natural law (physics)
Formation of basic molecules like H2O through natural law (physics)
Formation of more complex molecules through natural law (chemical evolution)
Formation of self-replicating molecules (natural law? If not, then skip this step)
Formation of the first cell (God or natural law?) <====================== A gap God might fill!
Evolution of the first cell (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of species (mutation + natural selection)
Evolution of humans (mutation + natural selection)

There are only two steps in that progression dominated by NATURAL LAW in which a "god hypothesis" would make any sense, and there is nothing that comes close to proving the existence of some speculative god.

And once again you are burning your own strawman. I have never argued that "there is some *UNKNOWN* law of chemistry that would force lifeless chemicals to self-organize itself into life." This is so typical of the crap you write - you falsely claim that I said things that I have never said. Then you try to justify your misrepresentation by claiming that they were "implied" by what I wrote. That's total bullshit. If you want to have anything like a serious conversation, you need to begin by quoting something I actually have written and responding to THAT. My point, which you have missed as many times as I have repeated it, is that known NATURAL LAWS may well account for the chemical evolution that ultimately led to life. This is a very reasonable hypothesis given the success of natural law in explaining everything and the utter failure of the god hypothesis.



Since you're introducing an *UNKNOWN* into the equation (in order to avoid the *NATURAL* explanation of intelligent design), then THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU to demonstrate that there actually IS some freaky law of chemistry that forced lifeless chemicals to self-organize into the first living cell. Intelligent design is the default because we *KNOW* a superior intelligence would have the ability to create physical life from lifeless matter.

I did not introduce any "unknown." The simple fact is that the sciences of genetics and chemistry are very young, so it would be utterly absurd at this point to take the "natural" belief that "gawd did it" as the answer.

Your assertion that the burden of proof is on the scientist to prove that God didn't do it is absurd. There is no "burden of proof" because I have not made any assertion on this point! On the contrary, I have repeatedly asserted that NO ONE KNOWS how life began, so it is idiotic to tell me that I have a burden to "prove" something I never said or implied (and which contradicts what I have said). You mind is very confused Gambini.

You assertion that Intelligent Design is the "default position" is ludicrous beyond description. The courts have ruled that it is bogus science and is really just the same old anti-scientific religious bullshit commonly known as creationism. Here's what the JUDGE said in the Dover case:
On December 20, 2005, Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact) and decision ruling that the Dover mandate requiring the statement to be read in class was unconstitutional. The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from "maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.
They judge stated the truth. ID Creationism is religion, not science, and it got its but kicked in a court of law. The proponents made fools of themselves and reveals the abject absurdity of the pseudo-science.



"Creationists focus on questions about "origins" because it is the only GAP in our scientific knowledge that would allow a place for god. This is called the "God of the Gaps" argument and it is fundamentally wrong headed"

You and Rose really need to stop repeating this LIE (which I know you never will). I already demonstrated you're wrong on this point and yet you, and Rose, keep repeating it. The arguments for God have absolutely NOTHING to do with "gaps". They are syllogistically deduced from that which we KNOW (based on EVIDENCE)!!! Please get that in your system because you keep repeating this "gap" bullshit. Here's an example of 6 arguments for God that have NOTHING to do with what we don't know and EVERYTHING to do with what we DO know ...

Those silly-gisms are the purest form of bullshit. They've been refuted a thousand and one times (counting the refutation I will now present ... )



1) The argument from the origin of the universe. This argument is based on the *EVIDENCE* for the finitude of time, space, matter and energy. If it were a solid brutal fact that the entire natural world had a literal beginning ex nihilo, that would be 100% PROOF of an infinite and eternally existing reality that is immaterial, omnipresent and who brought the entire natural world into being. But there isn't PROOF of an absolute origin of time, space, matter and energy. RATHER, the *EVIDENCE* is in FAVOR of an absolute origin of time, space, matter and energy. Hence, the *EVIDENCE* supports theism. Do you deny that the *EVIDENCE* supports the absolute origin of time, space, matter and energy??? If you do, you're a liar. *ALL* of the cosmological *EVIDENCE* supports an absolute beginning whereas NONE of it supports an eternal past. That's what I mean when I say the argument is based on what we KNOW (it is syllogistically deduced from premises that are supported by *EVIDENCE*) ...

There is NO evidence that all NATURAL REALITY began existing when the universe that we can observe began. There is no reason whatsoever to think that the big bang did not happen as a consequence of natural laws. Your argument is based on a willful ignorance of the nature of the evidence. You are talking only about the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE that we happen to inhabit. We know nothing about the nature of reality beyond what we can see with our limited senses and instruments. No one has any knowledge of what caused the Big Bang. No one knows if it was or was not a totally NATURAL process. Science is very young. Your leap to unsupported assertions about a being that is "immaterial, omnipresent and who brought the entire natural world into being" is a total non-sequitur and is not supported by any evidence of any kind. The cause could be totally natural, just above, beyond, or outside the observable universe. There is no way to know. Thus, your argument fails.

There are many other problems with your assertions. A timeless being would be incapable of any action because any action entails the time. God could not go from a state of "not having created the world" to a state of "having created the world" if time dd not already exist. You concepts are logically incoherent in the extreme.

And the premise that the universe "began" may not be coherent. If there was no time "before" the universe "began to exist" what does it mean for it have "begun"? It may be that time is an open set and does not contain a "beginning point" any more than there is a smallest number in the open set of real numbers between 0 and 1.

And there are other problems which we can discuss if you really want to try to support you silly-gism.

The really pathetic thing about your appeal to cosmology is that you don't know shit about it, just like William Lane Craig, the leading preposterous bullshit apologist for Christianity. He's been soundly refuted on dozens of points that he continues to repeat like a mindless robot long after the laughter died down and turned to well-deserved derision.



And btw, the very FIRST question I ask anyone who asks me for evidence of God is whether they would consider an absolute ex nihilo origin of the entire natural world as evidence for a God. If they answer no, then I already know I'm dealing with someone who would refuse ANY AND ALL evidence for a God. If you're willing to believe everything can literally come from nothing just to avoid any theistic implications, then you will dismiss ANYTHING to avoid any theistic implications. There's no sense in arguing with someone who is that irrational.

First, no one knows if the universe sprang from "nothing" or from a larger reality that is entirely natural, just like this world. You assert that it sprang from a supernatural source. You are free to think what you like, but you have not presented any reason anyone should believe you because you know nothing more than anyone else when it comes to these questions. Your "arguments" are nothing but empty assertions propped up by blatantly fallacious logic.

Second, no one knows if the universe originated "ex nihilo" since we have no knowledge of what caused the big bang.

Third, your assertion that God created "ex nihilo" may be logically incoherent since it did not come from nothing, but from God's creative power.

It should be obvious that I am not trying to avoid any "theistic implications" since I think your "theistic implication" is logically incoherent. It makes no sense to speak of a timeless being acting in time to create a universe. That's a self-contradiction and so cannot be true.

Well, that's enough for now. I'll address the other arguments after you answer this post.

Great chatting!

Richard

:sunny:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-01-2014, 04:08 PM
Also, since you so quickly dismiss the probability numbers against evolution arising on its own as BS, what number would you insert for the probability that this extremely complicated process, enormously dependent upon information rich molecules, would arise of its own accord by chance? Perhaps you as a mathematician in search of truth would have at least checked on these odds to ensure you are not on the wrong path.

Watch this short excerpt from a video interview between John Mackay and Dr. Ed Neeland, a chemical engineer and Professor of Synthetic Chemistry at the University of BC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLGrxGBO364


Don't you just love Truth? It really is inescapable.

John

(Edited to correct the hyperlink to the interview)
Hey there John,

I would not be so foolish to try to calculate a bogus "probability" for a process we know so little about. That's what desperate creationists do when they go looking for some way to avoid the truth which they so clearly despise, ignore the mountain of demonstrable evidence staring them in the face.

I watched the video. The chemist admitted that "the amino acids do link up, and you will get proteins with them" through natural law alone. His only argument was that they do not immediately produce the exact proteins used in modern cells, and argued that the the chirality problem implied it never could happen. Such a leap is entirely unjustified. There are many possible explanations. There are natural physical processes, such as circularly polarized light, that will selectively destroy right handed molecules, leaving an excess of left handed molecules that may have been prevalent when life evolved. Or it could be that the chemistry that gave rise to life might have had a bias towards one chirality for reasons we don't know yet. Remember, modern science is in its infancy. To go looking for "problems" while ignoring all the solid evidence in a vain effort to support ludicrous fairy tales from a primitive religious text is absurd in the extreme.

Yes, TRUTH is inescapable ... to those who love it. Unfortunately, not everyone loves the truth. Dogmatic religion breeds a contempt for the truth, as the creationists have proven in spades. You reject the whole body of modern science and accept whatever creationists tell you merely because it confirms what you want to believe. Think about it - Francis Collins, the director of the human genome project a devout Christian, is totally convinced of common descent. Does he think that contradicts the Bible? Nope. So what if he's right? What if God really did use evolution and your interpretation of the Bible is fallacious? That would mean that you are contradicting God's Own Truth! Don't you care about this at all? How is it possible for you to take such a strong anti-science stance when you know that you are fundamentally ignorant of the issues? And how can you believe the blatant lies propagated by so many creationists? It seems you have no discernment at all. Indeed, it seems like you don't even care about the truth one bit! We are talking about science and reality. Science is an integrated whole because reality is an integrated whole. You can't just throw out the parts that contradict your religious beliefs without implicitly denying it all. We've been talking about this for years and I have yet to see any indication that you have made any progress towards truth. You continue to appeal to corrupt creationists even as you totally ignore all established science that you could, if you were so inclined, confirm for your own self.

Have you read a SINGLE BOOK written by an evolutionary scientist that explains the evidence supporting it? If I recall correctly, I've asked you this question before and the answer was no. This is the response I have gotten from every Christian I've ever talked to about evolution. It reveals a very sad fact: Believers are not interested in truth at all! They believe the most ludicrous lies spewed out by creationists merely because they confirm what they want to believe. If they were interested in truth, they would begin with the foundation of science, and admit that which is demonstrably true.

Sorry for the rant, but your constant declaration that you "love truth" even as you reject it prompted this response. I'm really glad you are here to share your views. I just wish you would enter into authentic discourse and an authentic search for truth and begin to learn the basics of reality. The Earth is not 6,000 years old. Adam and Eve did not exist. They did not ride dinosaurs. The flood never happened. The Exodus never happened. There is no evidence for any of those Biblical teachings and a mountain of evidence against them.

All the very best,

Richard

David M
09-05-2014, 03:00 AM
Remember, modern science is in its infancy.

Infancy here means "at an early stage". We do not know in terms of science what the "adult" or the latter stages will be, or how the "infant" will turn out in the end. Evolution is an infant that has not reached full maturity and who knows that it ever will. Evolution is a theory stringing together facts. The current theory holds until something new comes along adding to or modifying it. The theory might be an explanation for the facts, but it is not something that is proven beyond doubt. Evolution might just be an explanation for some kind of order behind Creation. Did God design and make creatures haphazardly, or was there progression in design and creation adding more complexity at each stage of creation? Maybe God has thrown in some odd-balls, which do not fit the general pattern. Evolution is finding the rules, and it is the exception that proves the rule, but Evolution can have no exceptions as there has to be a seamless connection back to the origin.

God's word that was written down under divine inspiration. Creationists have some evidence, which Evolutionists have to dismiss. Creationists can rely on intuition, but Evolutionists cannot.

'Creation' as an answer to the origin of the universe and life can be valid, because it is an intuitive answer based on all knowledge and observation. The mind has come up with an intuitive answer, even though the mind's workings cannot be written down. Science cannot be based on intuition, because science has to work out all the steps/stages that will lead to the answer.

If the intuitive answer is correct to begin with, adding more facts will not make any difference. Adding more facts to Evolutionary theory might cause the theory to collapse. Who knows since "modern science is in its infancy".

Rose
09-05-2014, 08:10 AM
Infancy here means "at an early stage". We do not know in terms of science what the "adult" or the latter stages will be, or how the "infant" will turn out in the end. Evolution is an infant that has not reached full maturity and who knows that it ever will. Evolution is a theory stringing together facts. The current theory holds until something new comes along adding to or modifying it. The theory might be an explanation for the facts, but it is not something that is proven beyond doubt. Evolution might just be an explanation for some kind of order behind Creation.

Hello David

If evolution is an explanation for the facts why would you posit it as merely an order behind creation, when creation is an explanation with NO facts? So far, the evidence and facts that make up the Theory of Evolution, makes creationism unnecessary except for maybe origins of the first cell, and that only because it is an unknown.

Evolution still stands because it continues to hold up to the rigorous standard of testing that all science must adhere to. Science has a built-in system of waste removal ... if it is not needed or wrong, it is discarded. Religion on the other hand has no such standard or system, anyone is free to make up anything they want since religious beliefs are just made up from imaginings of peoples minds, with no basis in facts.


Did God design and make creatures haphazardly, or was there progression in design and creation adding more complexity at each stage of creation? Maybe God has thrown in some odd-balls, which do not fit the general pattern. Evolution is finding the rules, and it is the exception that proves the rule, but Evolution can have no exceptions as there has to be a seamless connection back to the origin.

What it seems like you are saying is that evolution like all theories must hold up to a rigorous standard, but creationism has no such standard to adhere to because the god behind is not based on evidence or facts. Science always has been held to a higher standard than religion, which is what makes it reliable, unlike religion which can change with the whims of men. Science and religion do not share the same playing field, because the rules are far too different ... religion and politics are much more compatible in that area, being mostly made up of people with strong opinions.





God's word that was written down under divine inspiration. Creationists have some evidence, which Evolutionists have to dismiss. Creationists can rely on intuition, but Evolutionists cannot.


What evidence do creationists have ... and why the double standard that you say allows Creationists to rely on intuition, but not Evolutionists? In reality intuition can only be used to lead a person in a particular direction, but the results must always be tested against the facts. I might have a strong intuition that a friend is coming to visit, but until it is confirmed I'm not going to plan a dinner party for them.


'Creation' as an answer to the origin of the universe and life can be valid, because it is an intuitive answer based on all knowledge and observation. The mind has come up with an intuitive answer, even though the mind's workings cannot be written down. Science cannot be based on intuition, because science has to work out all the steps/stages that will lead to the answer.

If the intuitive answer is correct to begin with, adding more facts will not make any difference. Adding more facts to Evolutionary theory might cause the theory to collapse. Who knows since "modern science is in its infancy".

Intuition must always be backed up with evidence and facts, otherwise it cannot be trusted or relied upon. People who believe in god based on intuition, always end up making excuses for why their prayers and questions go unanswered. If adding more facts to a theory causes it to collapse, then it was false to begin with and should be discarded like all wrong theories are ... that is how science works.

Science can be relied upon, which is why you can depend upon your car to take you places if it is in working order and your computer to function if it is in working order ... this is not the case with religious beliefs, you cannot depend on god to heal your child if he is sick, but you can depend on your doctor if science has discovered a cure for his illness.

Kind regards,
Rose

David M
09-25-2014, 01:43 AM
To continue this thread and try to find how the first simple cell could have formed, whether by evolving from chemicals, or created by design, I am giving the link to a video/lecture on Youtube. This gives us an appreciation of the complexxity involved in the simplest of cells, even the cell membrane, which might be considered to be a "simple" component of the cell. The video/lecture was posted just over 12 months ago on Youtube.

The speaker is Dr Fazale Rana, who has a PhD in biochemistry. What is presented is from a scientist. The fact that he is a Christian does not take away from the complexity of the problem in understanding how the cell could have evolved or was designed.

With cell production, we are introduced to topics like; molecular motors, production processes, quality control, chicken and egg systems.

The subject of information carried by the DNA moluecule is not covered in this lecture.

The video is 59 minutes long.

In order to drill down and get to the simplest components first, my question is; What is the simplest part of the simplest cell? Whatever the answer is, can this simplest part be man-made from the assembly of basic chemicals or biochemicals? If it can be man-made, which is the deliberate forcing together of the chemicals by man's control, then than gives the possibility that those same chemicals might have spontaneously interacted (in the right conditions) to prove the evolution process could have begun.

Here is the link to the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvj7paO8ojQ

davidjayjordan
08-18-2017, 07:59 AM
The simpliest human cell is amazingly complex, rather than simple as evolutionists would have hoped for.

The first magical process, probably for mystically minded evolutionists, would be that once upon a time, way back in their primodial past vapours and mists, the components of a cell just happened to be close together, and boom, bang, a permeable cell wall just appeared out of no where, and the processes within a cell wall could magically make themselves gather together to form a living organism..... under the all seeing and watchful eye of their God, of Evolution.

But as we know, as scientists know, cell walls or cells, or forces or laws were not created by luck and chance and they have not evolved.

There is no simple cell.... nothing gets more complicated and advanced with time. The direction of time, and the LAW of THERMODYNAMICS dictates that all living material goes to a state of lesser organization..... IE... it lives and then decays and dies...

Evolution is a LIE, to put it mildly.