Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[Right Divider]

Go back to START. Everything I send to YOU turns to GOO. Do Better.

You are both dim and humorless.

Will you begin to defend your molecules-to-men naturalistic philosophy or not?

 

[JudgeRightly]

we cannot synthesize all the biochemicals needed to make a soup that can generate fresh life.

We don't even need to "synthesize" any of them. Just look at any freshly dead body, all the right elements to sustain life, yet we don't see new life arising from the dead bodies.

Oh, so you prefer the land puddles that are constantly drying out and filling again as the cradle of life?

Are you forgetting that I'm a Biblical creationist?

 

[Skeeter]

You don't understand the problem. If your claim were true the LUCA would have had to have the superset of all subsets we see today.

Why?

And on another note, I'd like to point out that lately people that believe in common descent have changed their rhetoric about the LUCA. It has become fashionable to claim that there were many Origin of Life events at roughly the same time because the sheer stupidity of claiming that all the diversity of life coming from a single common ancestor is looking more and more preposterous even to laymen that believe what they are told about origins without question.

I think it would be likely that abiogenesis having had the conditions needed to occur might well have happened more than once in similar but slightly different ways. Many eventually went extinct. LUCA succeeded.

So it only means that a chemical process, OOL, that is claimed to not be a part of common descent is being more closely linked to common descent and must be discussed. But this creates an OPPORTUNITY for people that believe in common descent! Having no evidence for OOL and a mountain of evidence against it means the lie that it occurred can be even bigger! And as those that believe in OOL know, the bigger the lie the more effective it can be - but only if it can be told over and over without opposition.

I would wager more creationists actually know they are lying given their common method of taking quotes out of context, their willful ignorance of the actual mechanisms of evolution, and their false humility hidden by allegiance with supposed ultimate authority. Biologists are aware of the vast convergence of evidence supporting evolution so probably have high authentic confidence in the theory. Experimental design weeds out wishful thinking that can influence experiments subconsciously.

But until you bring some evidence, I'm compelled to believe the existing evidence that says the earth is young, the flood was worldwide, and common descent by random-undirected-mutations + natural selection is wrong.

You reject evidence with a notorious shell game but I am on to your tricks.

 

[Eric h]

Evidence helps fuel the imagination.

Single cell to multicellular is not that hard to imagine.

If you need to use your imagination to understand the evidence, then I don't think that counts as evidence

True, Abiogenesis is hard.

Do you ,mean it is hard to imagine how it could happen.

There is the fruit fly experiment where the flies adapted to no light conditions. Dark fly might not be a new species but it sure did evolve to the environment.

But you are starting off with perfectly good flies. This is very much the same as a black African coming to live in Scotland, over the generations his descendants will have lighter skin.

This does not answer the question I asked, going back billions of years to single cell life; how did the skeletal system evolve?

Nilsson - Pelger did a projection that the shape of an eye lens might take 1829 gradual steps over about half a million years. Taking this into consideration, how many gradual steps would it take for each bone, ligament, tendon and muscle to evolve?

 

[Yorzhik]

Why?

Because all the improvements in fitness we see today are subsets of the information available to create the improved organism. In other words, to make an improvement in fitness information of greater value has to be broken.

I think it would be likely that abiogenesis having had the conditions needed to occur might well have happened more than once in similar but slightly different ways. Many eventually went extinct. LUCA succeeded.

Two things. First, if you are still arguing that there was a single ancestor for all life on earth today, you have to find a way for that LUCA to have the superset of all the information of all life on earth today. Second, if you are saying there were multiple LUCAs, then the lack of evidence you have for OOL just gets worse.

I would wager more creationists actually know they are lying given their common method of taking quotes out of context, their willful ignorance of the actual mechanisms of evolution, and their false humility hidden by allegiance with supposed ultimate authority. Biologists are aware of the vast convergence of evidence supporting evolution so probably have high authentic confidence in the theory.

Biologists are not aware of any vast convergence of evidence. They are aware if they don't please the gatekeepers of academia they won't eat. This is a powerful motivator so they do have an authentic belief in common descent

Experimental design weeds out wishful thinking that can influence experiments subconsciously.

You are using wishful thinking here. As has already been shown, there is no experiment that shows undirected mutations can create a new function, and plenty of evidence against it.

You reject evidence with a notorious shell game but I am on to your tricks.

Sure, man, as demonstrated by the lack of evidence you've shown.

 

[Idolater]

, there is no experiment that shows undirected mutations can create a new function, and plenty of evidence against it.

Just because every time you threw a deck of cards onto the floor the 52 cards didn't self assemble into a house, doesn't mean that it therefore never really did happen. That's a logical fallacy.

 

[Yorzhik]

Just because every time you threw a deck of cards onto the floor the 52 cards didn't self assemble into a house, doesn't mean that it therefore never really did happen. That's a logical fallacy.

I said the experiments so far show "the cards have not made a house".

And now it's time for you to show us the evidence a thrown deck of cards can make a house. When you do that we'll see if there is any evidence against the idea.

 

[Clete]

Divider seems to think microbes are just goo. Life around the undersea vents wasn't that gooey.

We could not have come from microbes any more than from a random assortment of carbon based chemicals but I wouldn't be willing to grant you the intellectual ground that starting things from microbes would afford you. However far we are from microbes wouldn't be 1 billionth as far the microbes would be from goo.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Just because every time you threw a deck of cards onto the floor the 52 cards didn't self assemble into a house, doesn't mean that it therefore never really did happen. That's a logical fallacy.

No it isn't.

 

[Right Divider]

I think it would be likely that abiogenesis having had the conditions needed to occur might well have happened more than once in similar but slightly different ways. Many eventually went extinct. LUCA succeeded.

The conditions never existed... so your idea is null and void.

I would wager more creationists actually know they are lying given their common method of taking quotes out of context, their willful ignorance of the actual mechanisms of evolution, and their false humility hidden by allegiance with supposed ultimate authority.

Your continued lying is not helping your story.

Biologists are aware of the vast convergence of evidence supporting evolution so probably have high authentic confidence in the theory.

Hilarious again.

Experimental design weeds out wishful thinking that can influence experiments subconsciously.

You cannot "experiment" on "evolution" (i.e., macro-evolution). We are simply told to believe it without evidence. That's a faith without reason.

You reject evidence with a notorious shell game but I am on to your tricks.

Another lie... you lie too much.

 

[Skeeter]

Because all the improvements in fitness we see today are subsets of the information available to create the improved organism. In other words, to make an improvement in fitness information of greater value has to be broken.

This is just not true. Most mutations are neutral and they are common. Each human has 70 to 200 or so of them. Two percent could be harmful, ten percent helpful.

Mutations add to the richness of variability, Information is added when environmental factors interact with them and effect the frequency of alleles in the next generations.

Two things. First, if you are still arguing that there was a single ancestor for all life on earth today, you have to find a way for that LUCA to have the superset of all the information of all life on earth today. Second, if you are saying there were multiple LUCAs, then the lack of evidence you have for OOL just gets worse.

I think there is just one LUCA where things really took off from but LUCA had a few buddies contemporary to him that did not fair as well. I do not know if there is evidence for this or not.

More importantly, Code changes create novel combinations and different proteins with different chemical properties. Your Superset idea is interesting and you love it because it requires a creator to move forward, NOT because there is evidence for it.

Biologists are not aware of any vast convergence of evidence. They are aware if they don't please the gatekeepers of academia they won't eat. This is a powerful motivator so they do have an authentic belief in common descent.

You do not have access to their thoughts and motivations. If they were money hungry one would think they would have chosen a different field in the first place. Cults spring up around religious beliefs, not in disciplines were rigorous testing calibration, and peer review is required.

You are using wishful thinking here. As has already been shown, there is no experiment that shows undirected mutations can create a new function, and plenty of evidence against it.

What? EXAMPLE 1: E. coli mutations lead to new ability to metabolize citrate. EXAMPLE 2: Pesticides stop working because of acquired immunity Where did you show what has already been shown?

 

[Idolater]

...Cults spring up around religious beliefs, not in disciplines were rigorous testing calibration, and peer review is required.
....

There was an entire cult of Newtonian physicists before the truth of QED and Relativity destroyed it.

 

[Right Divider]

This is just not true. Most mutations are neutral and they are common. Each human has 70 to 200 or so of them. Two percent could be harmful, ten percent helpful.

Nonsense. Wishful thinking.

Mutations add to the richness of variability,

Nonsense again. Random mutations are all damage to already existing genetics.

Information is added when environmental factors interact with them and effect the frequency of alleles in the next generations.

There is never "information added" by mutations. That is another fantasy.

I think there is just one LUCA where things really took off from but LUCA had a few buddies contemporary to him that did not fair as well. I do not know if there is evidence for this or not.

Fairy tales are for children. Both the LUCA and his "buddies" already exists... nothing new at all.

More importantly, Code changes create novel combinations and different proteins with different chemical properties.

Vivid imagination. Try the real world some time.

 

[Skeeter]

The conditions never existed... so your idea is null and void.

Because you say so? Labs are working on this. If they simulate 1- the emergence of the building blocks of life via plausible primordial earth conditions and 2- eventual self assembly of protocells, will you accept at least the possibility that abiogenesis occurred?

You cannot "experiment" on "evolution" (i.e., macro-evolution). We are simply told to believe it without evidence. That's a faith without reason.

Sure you can. Inference and extrapolation combined with info supported by observed evolution creates a rock sold understanding.

 

[Skeeter]

There was an entire cult of Newtonian physicists before the truth of QED and Relativity destroyed it.

Paradigm shifts are not cults dying. Science is like soap, it is self-cleaning.

 

[Idolater]

Because you say so? Labs are working on this. If they simulate 1- the emergence of the building blocks of life via plausible primordial earth conditions ans 2- eventually self assembly of protocells, will you accept at least the possibility that abiogenesis occurred?

Sure you can. Inference and extrapolation combined with info supported by observed evolution creates a rock sold understanding.

Large extrapolation does not create anything "rock solid", by definition. Interpolation can, but you don't have that.

 

[Idolater]

Paradigm shifts are not cults dying. Science is like soap, it is self-cleaning.

Tomato tomahto.

 

[Skeeter]

Large extrapolation does not create anything "rock solid", by definition. Interpolation can, but you don't have that.

Small extrapolation is cool.

 

[Skeeter]

To support the theory of supernatural creation, you need to do more than bash evolution. You need to provide evidence of the creator, their materials, and methods. Maybe your goal is simply to say both involve faith, and agree to disagree?

 

[Idolater]

To support the theory of supernatural creation, you need to do more than bash evolution. You need to provide evidence of the creator, their materials, and methods. Maybe your goal is simply to say both involve faith, and agree to disagree?

You just have to provide the evidence of Christ's Resurrection. You don't any more evidence of God than that.