A Few "Simple" Questions Regarding Abiogenesis/Darwinian Evolution

jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
A Few "Simple" Questions Regarding Abiogenesis/Darwinian Evolution

This is for everyone who thinks all biological organisms can be explained by naturalistic mechanisms. When I use the word "evolution" in this thread, I am referring to darwinian evolution (common ancestry via random mutations and natural selection).

1. Do you consider evolution to be proven scientifically?
2. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate from inorganic matter just by chemistry without intelligent design?
3. How did the DNA code originate?
4. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
5. Why is natural selection taught as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
6. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
7. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
8. How did multi-cellular life originate?
9. How did sex originate?
10. Why are the (expected) millions of transitional fossils missing?
11. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
12. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
13. Why do you reject the idea of an Intelligent Designer?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:This is for

jackspell wrote:
This is for everyone who thinks all biological organisms can be explained by naturalistic mechanisms. When I use the word "evolution" in this thread, I am referring to darwinian evolution (common ancestry via random mutations and natural selection). 1. Do you consider evolution to be proven scientifically?

Yes, however we question even the most logical explanations of life.. Darwin has given us more than an reasonable supply of proof

Quote:
2. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate from inorganic matter just by chemistry without intelligent design?

To think that this design is intelligent is a lack there of..

Quote:
3. How did the DNA code originate?

Through years of mutations, many species have died out. Some however continue to evolve.

Quote:
4. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

Errors were necessary in the progress from single celled organisms to the microbiologist that exist today.

Quote:
5. Why is natural selection taught as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

Natural selection explains more than necessary.

Quote:
6. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?/

You have already answered your own question "evolution"

Quote:
7. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

Living things are full of visible false

jackspell wrote:
8. How did multi-cellular life originate?

Again you have already answered this "evolution"

Quote:
9. How did sex originate?

Even single cell organisms need purpose to replicate themselves. It would come as no surprise that evolved creatures would do the same.

Quote:
10. Why are the (expected) millions of transitional fossils missing?

It has easily taken millions of years for us to get to where we are. So it is easier to suggest that we are all "transitional"

Quote:
11. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?

Again it takes millions of years. You are not born one thing and die another. Brian he needs to see your debate with Kirk..lol

Quote:
12. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

You do not want to debate morality on the side of theism do you. Religion has proved that it is not moral.

 

Quote:
13. Why do you reject the idea of an Intelligent Designer?

Our "design" is not intelligent. We are evolving even now. Change your argument to "ignorant designer" and I might take you seriously.

 

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Do you have access to a library, Jackspell?

 

You should do some reading. These questions are far too complex to be answered in a few lines but many of them have been answered or partly answered. Again you come with the appeal to complexity. Science can't explain some things so I will just slot in my unsubstantiated supernatural opinion supported by false equations of completely random chance at every layer of the life process. 

Yes, we believe the biochemical process is a natural one, just as it is now. A process in which carbon-based organisms exist and evolve in an environment partly created by their respirations. Microevolution has been proven multiple times and macroevolution is microevolution multiplied by varied lengths of time. Not all creatures evolve - they need to be pressured into it by beneficial mutation in a changing environment so that genetic benefits can be expressed as the procreative success of individuals. 

Yes, we know. Abiogenesis is a great mystery. We all agree on this. But biochemistry is based on molecules and compounds that exist in the material world. These things are knowable things, even if the development of the first RNA threads and the eventual development of DNA cannot yet be comprehended at this time. One thing is sure. We will know more about DNA and about the nature and development of living cells. We will never know more about the existence of your hypothetical first cause. Never, ever, ever. 

If you are such a fan of empirical proof now, please explain to me how creation works. We're all breathless to know and we are comforted that some one like you will only accept the most stringent empirical proofs of it. And perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining why the mitochondria in the cell of every microbiologist has its own RNA and appears to be a parasite that once took up residence in a bacteria cell as part of the process of the development of procaryotes, complex cells that are symbiotic ecosystems comprising mutually dependent organelles.

And you could also outline, using the bible doctrine, why multicellular creatures appear to be vast ecosystems comprised of variations of the same basic cells, all working in partnership with each other and with symbiotic bacteria cells, and all completely unaware of the arguments of Jackspell. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2356
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
I can answer that.

jackspell wrote:
This is for everyone who thinks all biological organisms can be explained by naturalistic mechanisms. When I use the word "evolution" in this thread, I am referring to darwinian evolution (common ancestry via random mutations and natural selection). 1. Do you consider evolution to be proven scientifically? 2. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate from inorganic matter just by chemistry without intelligent design? 3. How did the DNA code originate? 4. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist? 5. Why is natural selection taught as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? 6. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? 7. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? 8. How did multi-cellular life originate? 9. How did sex originate? 10. Why are the (expected) millions of transitional fossils missing? 11. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years? 12. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? 13. Why do you reject the idea of an Intelligent Designer?

 

 

                    In fact I have answered those question, on  TV, with a "bible literalist";

 

                                  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/31241  

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Why is the page stretched so

Why is the page stretched so much?

 

I'm not a biologist, so I can only answer 1 as yes and 13 with because it makes too many assertions and the "design" of the human body is flawed


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson

jimmy.williamson wrote:

jackspell wrote:
This is for everyone who thinks all biological organisms can be explained by naturalistic mechanisms. When I use the word "evolution" in this thread, I am referring to darwinian evolution (common ancestry via random mutations and natural selection). 1. Do you consider evolution to be proven scientifically?

Yes, however we question even the most logical explanations of life.. Darwin has given us more than an reasonable supply of proof

Quote:
2. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate from inorganic matter just by chemistry without intelligent design?

To think that this design is intelligent is a lack there of..

Quote:
3. How did the DNA code originate?

Through years of mutations, many species have died out. Some however continue to evolve.

Quote:
4. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

Errors were necessary in the progress from single celled organisms to the microbiologist that exist today.

Quote:
5. Why is natural selection taught as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

Natural selection explains more than necessary.

Quote:
6. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?/

You have already answered your own question "evolution"

Quote:
7. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

Living things are full of visible false

jackspell wrote:
8. How did multi-cellular life originate?

Again you have already answered this "evolution"

Quote:
9. How did sex originate?

Even single cell organisms need purpose to replicate themselves. It would come as no surprise that evolved creatures would do the same.

Quote:
10. Why are the (expected) millions of transitional fossils missing?

It has easily taken millions of years for us to get to where we are. So it is easier to suggest that we are all "transitional"

Quote:
11. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?

Again it takes millions of years. You are not born one thing and die another. Brian he needs to see your debate with Kirk..lol

Quote:
12. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

You do not want to debate morality on the side of theism do you. Religion has proved that it is not moral.

 

Quote:
13. Why do you reject the idea of an Intelligent Designer?

Our "design" is not intelligent. We are evolving even now. Change your argument to "ignorant designer" and I might take you seriously.

 

Okay, so evolution is proven? That's funny. Maybe y'all need to read about a man by the name of Karl Popper. He is responsible for the "falsifiable" criterion of the scientific method. Considering that, I would like to know how darwinism is scientifically proven, when he says it isn't falsifiable. And does someone want to send me a link to the empirical evidence of abiogenesis? Id love to check that out. And why do so many think mutations can account for the information in the human genome? Really? I invite you to check out the ongoing experiment by Richard Lenski with E. Coli. In 24 years, he's had over 50000 generations. All together, the number of mutations is in the hundreds of millions. Guess how many beneficial ones have become fixated? 10 to 20! Now you want to tell me, with a straight face, that at that rate it would ever become the complex machine that is a human being? Comical. Even more comical when you think of how many times it has ever evolved into anything other that E. Coli. None! We have never seen anything evolve above anything other than a small adaptation. I have one more question, if I win the powerball lottery say, 5 times in a row, while being the supervisor of olerations, would anyone accuse me of cheating?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
jackspell

jackspell wrote:
jimmy.williamson wrote:

jackspell wrote:
This is for everyone who thinks all biological organisms can be explained by naturalistic mechanisms. When I use the word "evolution" in this thread, I am referring to darwinian evolution (common ancestry via random mutations and natural selection). 1. Do you consider evolution to be proven scientifically?

Yes, however we question even the most logical explanations of life.. Darwin has given us more than an reasonable supply of proof

Quote:
2. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate from inorganic matter just by chemistry without intelligent design?

To think that this design is intelligent is a lack there of..

Quote:
3. How did the DNA code originate?

Through years of mutations, many species have died out. Some however continue to evolve.

Quote:
4. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

Errors were necessary in the progress from single celled organisms to the microbiologist that exist today.

Quote:
5. Why is natural selection taught as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

Natural selection explains more than necessary.

Quote:
6. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?/

You have already answered your own question "evolution"

Quote:
7. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

Living things are full of visible false

jackspell wrote:
8. How did multi-cellular life originate?

Again you have already answered this "evolution"

Quote:
9. How did sex originate?

Even single cell organisms need purpose to replicate themselves. It would come as no surprise that evolved creatures would do the same.

Quote:
10. Why are the (expected) millions of transitional fossils missing?

It has easily taken millions of years for us to get to where we are. So it is easier to suggest that we are all "transitional"

Quote:
11. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?

Again it takes millions of years. You are not born one thing and die another. Brian he needs to see your debate with Kirk..lol

Quote:
12. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

You do not want to debate morality on the side of theism do you. Religion has proved that it is not moral.

 

Quote:
13. Why do you reject the idea of an Intelligent Designer?

Our "design" is not intelligent. We are evolving even now. Change your argument to "ignorant designer" and I might take you seriously.

 

Okay, so evolution is proven? That's funny. Maybe y'all need to read about a man by the name of Karl Popper. He is responsible for the "falsifiable" criterion of the scientific method. Considering that, I would like to know how darwinism is scientifically proven, when he says it isn't falsifiable. And does someone want to send me a link to the empirical evidence of abiogenesis? Id love to check that out. And why do so many think mutations can account for the information in the human genome? Really? I invite you to check out the ongoing experiment by Richard Lenski with E. Coli. In 24 years, he's had over 50000 generations. All together, the number of mutations is in the hundreds of millions. Guess how many beneficial ones have become fixated? 10 to 20! Now you want to tell me, with a straight face, that at that rate it would ever become the complex machine that is a human being? Comical. Even more comical when you think of how many times it has ever evolved into anything other that E. Coli. None! We have never seen anything evolve above anything other than a small adaptation. I have one more question, if I win the powerball lottery say, 5 times in a row, while being the supervisor of olerations, would anyone accuse me of cheating?

I would have to say there are many here that can field your assertions better than me.

See I am just one of the atheist that has limited knowledge of these things.

Also possibly the reason the page is so big..lol

I do however know enough to realize that you are way off base right now.

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
Your questions have been

Your questions have been dealt with on many occasions, I suggest you do your own homework.

 

Regarding the only actual claim you make, in your footer, of atheism being a religious belief.

If atheism is a religion. Define a non-religous belief system to the question of god or gods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
As alluded to earlier, today

As alluded to earlier, today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged fossils in the world's museums. If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these "transitional forms"is "missing links".

Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth." However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory." Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...". As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:jackspell

Jeffrick wrote:

jackspell wrote:
This is for everyone who thinks all biological organisms can be explained by naturalistic mechanisms. When I use the word "evolution" in this thread, I am referring to darwinian evolution (common ancestry via random mutations and natural selection). 1. Do you consider evolution to be proven scientifically? 2. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate from inorganic matter just by chemistry without intelligent design? 3. How did the DNA code originate? 4. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist? 5. Why is natural selection taught as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? 6. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? 7. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? 8. How did multi-cellular life originate? 9. How did sex originate? 10. Why are the (expected) millions of transitional fossils missing? 11. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years? 12. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? 13. Why do you reject the idea of an Intelligent Designer?

 

 

                    In fact I have answered those question, on  TV, with a "bible literalist";

 

                                  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/31241  

 

 

 

I'm not concerned with the any weak minded, uneducated Christians you may have argued with. Come get you some of me. Answer my questions.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:As alluded

jackspell wrote:
As alluded to earlier, today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged fossils in the world's museums. If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these "transitional forms"is "missing links". Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth." However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory." Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...". As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.

When you move beyond a linear perspective, divergent concepts will sink in. Go stare at a tree.

 

 

 

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
One of the most famous

One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted the following: “ The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:One of the

jackspell wrote:
One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted the following: “ The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

It is clear that the earth does not move, and that it does not lie elsewhere than at the center. — Aristitle  

 

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Now you've embraced

 

jackspell wrote:

 

Okay, so evolution is proven? That's funny.

 

 

the epistemology of positivism, please prove creation or admit your assertions are even less supported than the fledgling science of abiogenesis. Come on, Jack. We admit when we don't know. Why won't you?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
New fossils are

jackspell wrote:

One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted the following: “ The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

 

being discovered every year by the thousands. Each tells its indelible tale about the development of life on Earth. Since Gould died, amazing new discoveries have been made in rich fossil beds such as Chengjiang.

Conversely, we have all the proof of supernatural gods we will ever have - none... 

Rather than being quoted out of context, S Jay should be commended for his typically prickly honesty. 

 

P.S. And stop appealing to the authority of our luminaries. Wasn't it Jesus who said "blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed"? Your christian faith is flawed by your instinctive desire for empirical explanation, Jack. 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jackspell wrote:

 

Okay, so evolution is proven? That's funny.

 

 

the epistemology of positivism, please prove creation or admit your assertions are even less supported than the fledgling science of abiogenesis. Come on, Jack. We admit when we don't know. Why won't you?

 

 

Your inability to rationally refute this argument for a Creator will prove creation.
1. Everythingthatbegins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Support of premise 1
A. For something to come into being without any cause whatsoever would be to come into being from nothing. This would be worse that magic. If a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, at least you have a cause, even if it is the deceiving magician. But this is still better than NOTHING. I don't think anyone sincerely believes that things, like say, a horse or an Eskimo village,can just pop into being without a cause.
B. If something could come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing. Why don't bicycles and root beer POP into being? Why only universes?
C. I would assert common experience and scientific evidence confirm premise 1.

Support of premise 2
A. The universally accepted "Big Bang" model.
B. Redshift of light.
C. Abundance of certain light elements.
D. Microwave cosmic background radiation.
E. The thermodynamics of the universe.
F. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem

Clarification of the Cause
A. For think of what the universe is: ALL of space-time reality,including ALL matter and energy.
B. As the cause of space-time, matter and energy, this cause must be transcendent. Therefore, it is nonphysical,uncaused,immaterial, unimaginably powerful, and beyond space and time.
C. Furthermore, it must be a personal being. This is the only way a timeless cause can create a temporal effect. This is because if a cause is sufficient to produce its effect,then if the cause is there, the effect must be there too. To illustrate, water freezes @0C. The cause of the freezing is the temperature achieving 0C. If the temperature was always 0C, the water is eternally frozen. It would be impossible for the water to beginto freeze a finite time ago. Since the universe began to exist a finite time ago, its cause would have to be a personal being with free will,who chose to create as a free act,independent of any prior conditions.
D. To further illustrate why this cause must be a personal agent, consider causality. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. A prime-mover is unavoidable for the chain of events to begin. So whatever this may be, it has to be an uncaused cause, which exists by a necessity of its own nature. It follows logically that this cause must contain within itself the cause for the initial event. This is only achievable for an agent that is capable of free-will. Which,by nature,constitutes personal, intelligent beings. We experience this type of causation regularly. To illustrate,imagine 100 dominoes arranged in a manner that would allow you to push the first, into the second, into the third...into the hundredth. Assume you push the first, and they all fall as planned. If we then ask what was the immediate cause of #100 falling, we would say #99 knocked it over. It would follow that the immediate cause of#99 to fall,was #98,and so on all the way to#1. Now,what was the cause of #1 to fall? We could say because you pushed it. Okay, what caused you to push it? Easy, you chose to. But what caused you to choose to? You wanted to, simple as that. You had to make a choice, push it, or don't push it. This is an antonymical pair that exhausts all possibilities. Maybe their were factors that were considered in making your decision, but ultimately, none directly caused you to act. You acted because you chose to, end of story. Every event now has sufficient cause for happening, and we need look no further.

Conclusion This demonstrates the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe, which I happen to call, God.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jackspell wrote:

 

Okay, so evolution is proven? That's funny.

 

 

the epistemology of positivism, please prove creation or admit your assertions are even less supported than the fledgling science of abiogenesis. Come on, Jack. We admit when we don't know. Why won't you?

 

 

You admit when you don't know? So you admit you don't have proof of the origin of life?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
jackspell

jackspell wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jackspell wrote:

 

Okay, so evolution is proven? That's funny.

 

 

the epistemology of positivism, please prove creation or admit your assertions are even less supported than the fledgling science of abiogenesis. Come on, Jack. We admit when we don't know. Why won't you?

 

 

You admit when you don't know? So you admit you don't have proof of the origin of life?

Correct. We also admit you don't either.

 

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote:jackspell

neptewn wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jackspell wrote:

 

Okay, so evolution is proven? That's funny.

 

 

the epistemology of positivism, please prove creation or admit your assertions are even less supported than the fledgling science of abiogenesis. Come on, Jack. We admit when we don't know. Why won't you?

 

 

You admit when you don't know? So you admit you don't have proof of the origin of life?

Correct. We also admit you don't either.

 

Awesome. That was the purpose of this thread. To show that any naturalist has to rely on "faith" to maintain his worldview. But answer this for me: if I was the operations supervisor for the powerball lottery, and I won 5 consecutive times, would you say 1. God made me win. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

jackspell wrote:
This is for everyone who thinks all biological organisms can be explained by naturalistic mechanisms. .

Have you not realized IF you make your case you still have to demonstrate it was your chosen god out of all the gods that did it?

For the sake of argument I am willing to concede it is not natural and jump right to which god and you evidence for that.

Care to engage?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jackspell

jackspell wrote:
jimmy.williamson wrote:
Okay, so evolution is proven? That's funny. Maybe y'all need to read about a man by the name of Karl Popper. He is responsible for the "falsifiable" criterion of the scientific method. 

That is very simple. Popper is not a scientist.

Science never proves anything.

Falsifiability is his invention as a non-scientist.

That was simple. Any more nonsense?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

jackspell wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:
..Conclusion This demonstrates the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe, which I happen to call, God.

Pardon but you have failed to evidence there was only one creator god. You have failed to evidence which god that was if you insist there was only one. Please do not think there is a reason to accept the genocidal, jealous, petty, genital mutilating Yahweh a priori. That piece of shit isn't even in the running. Although if it did design this world it would explain the malevolent nature of the design and the design flaws IT built into humans and THEIR fear of humans living forever and its general hatred of ITs human creations.

AFTER and only after you have established the above you can start producing evidence for the "less"s and other crap you attribute to it.

AND should you ever say HE rather than IT you will also have to produce evidence of SEX as in a penis in light of immaterial and so forth.

Pardon if I think it a joke you can produce any evidence for the immaterial but give it a go. I need a good laugh.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Two more server farts.

 

I am gone for now.

 

Bye Bye

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Two more server farts.

 

I am gone for now.

 

Bye Bye

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:neptewn

jackspell wrote:
neptewn wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jackspell wrote:

 

Okay, so evolution is proven? That's funny.

 

 

the epistemology of positivism, please prove creation or admit your assertions are even less supported than the fledgling science of abiogenesis. Come on, Jack. We admit when we don't know. Why won't you?

 

 

You admit when you don't know? So you admit you don't have proof of the origin of life?

Correct. We also admit you don't either.

 

Awesome. That was the purpose of this thread. To show that any naturalist has to rely on "faith" to maintain his worldview. But answer this for me: if I was the operations supervisor for the powerball lottery, and I won 5 consecutive times, would you say 1. God made me win. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?

 

This is an incorrect assumption and you misunderstand science.

Let us rationalize your logic for the existence of your god.

 

Hypothesis (or educated guess)

1 - Educated guesses take observations and testing to show the validity of the hypothesis.

2 - Your religion can not be tested and your god can not be observed. It fails as a hypothesis.

3 - There for your claim is not an educated guess but a statement of your faith.

 

How ever if I apply this same reasoning to evolution...

1 - Educated guesses take observations and testing to show the validity of the hypothesis.

2 - Evolution can be tested and can be observed. It succeeds as a hypothesis.

3 - There for evolution becomes a working hypothesis.

 

Let's go a bit further...

1 - Observations from scientists such as Joseph Mendel and Charles Darwin lead to educated guesses that there are traits passed along each generation.

2 - Testing of these observations builds evidence in support of the hypothesis's such evolution and genetics.

3 - Laws of Mendel and Natural Selection are taken as factual because of the testing of observations.

 

 

The constant theme from theists is that "it is so incredible" or "so awesome" or "unmeasurable", etc that they shut down their rational thinking process and then "give it all up to their creator". It is as if you are sticking your head in the sand to avoid thinking about it any further.

The scientist constantly challenges what they observe or are told. We test things to see if they are true. We observe things to see if they are true.

Since we can not observe or test any god, any religion for the validity of their claims we reject them.

You continue to believe in them solely based on your faith.

And since we can not prove or disprove your faith we would be fools to debate it.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:jackspell

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

jackspell wrote:
jimmy.williamson wrote:
Okay, so evolution is proven? That's funny. Maybe y'all need to read about a man by the name of Karl Popper. He is responsible for the "falsifiable" criterion of the scientific method. 

That is very simple. Popper is not a scientist.

Science never proves anything.

Falsifiability is his invention as a non-scientist.

That was simple. Any more nonsense?

 

prove

  [proov]  Show IPA verb, proved, proved orprov·en, prov·ing.verb (used with object)1.to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence orargument: to prove one's claim.2.Law to establish the authenticity or validity of (a will);probate.3.to give demonstration of by action.4.to subject to a test, experimentcomparison, analysis, or thelike, to determine quality, amount, acceptability,characteristics, etc.: to prove ore.5.to show (oneself) to have the character or ability expected ofone, especially through one's actions.http://sp.dictionary.com/en/i/dictionary/newserp/Sprite_Serp.png); background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; width: 4px; cursor: pointer; display: block; font: normal normal bold 11px/normal arial; height: 18px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 26px; padding-top: 5px; background-position: -402px -278px; background-repeat: repeat repeat; ">EXPANDThis sure sounds like what the scientific method aims to do.  And you think you refuted my arguement? Really? So because Popper was a philosopher of science, his opinion is invalid? Dude, just because you spend your Saturday mornings watching Bill Nye The Science Guy, doesn't mean you can sit at the big boys table.  I am working on my case for the Christian God in another thread.  When it's done, you can post some more objections that are weak as fish piss.  

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:
neptewn wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jackspell wrote:

 

Okay, so evolution is proven? That's funny.

 

 So answer my question about the lottery.  If I was operations supervisor of the Powerball Lottery, and won 5 consecutive times, would you say it was 1. God let me win. 2. I was lucky. 3. I cheated?

the epistemology of positivism, please prove creation or admit your assertions are even less supported than the fledgling science of abiogenesis. Come on, Jack. We admit when we don't know. Why won't you?

 

 

You admit when you don't know? So you admit you don't have proof of the origin of life?

Correct. We also admit you don't either.

 

Awesome. That was the purpose of this thread. To show that any naturalist has to rely on "faith" to maintain his worldview. But answer this for me: if I was the operations supervisor for the powerball lottery, and I won 5 consecutive times, would you say 1. God made me win. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?

 

This is an incorrect assumption and you misunderstand science.

Let us rationalize your logic for the existence of your god.

 

Hypothesis (or educated guess)

1 - Educated guesses take observations and testing to show the validity of the hypothesis.

2 - Your religion can not be tested and your god can not be observed. It fails as a hypothesis.

3 - There for your claim is not an educated guess but a statement of your faith.

 

How ever if I apply this same reasoning to evolution...

1 - Educated guesses take observations and testing to show the validity of the hypothesis.

2 - Evolution can be tested and can be observed. It succeeds as a hypothesis.

3 - There for evolution becomes a working hypothesis.

 

Let's go a bit further...

1 - Observations from scientists such as Joseph Mendel and Charles Darwin lead to educated guesses that there are traits passed along each generation.

2 - Testing of these observations builds evidence in support of the hypothesis's such evolution and genetics.

3 - Laws of Mendel and Natural Selection are taken as factual because of the testing of observations.

 

 

The constant theme from theists is that "it is so incredible" or "so awesome" or "unmeasurable", etc that they shut down their rational thinking process and then "give it all up to their creator". It is as if you are sticking your head in the sand to avoid thinking about it any further.

The scientist constantly challenges what they observe or are told. We test things to see if they are true. We observe things to see if they are true.

Since we can not observe or test any god, any religion for the validity of their claims we reject them.

You continue to believe in them solely based on your faith.

And since we can not prove or disprove your faith we would be fools to debate it.

 

 

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Was this a reply or a

Was this a reply or a accidental post?

Am I to assume you are using Mr. Craig's fallacies to support your views?

I've read his claims previously. I reject them for the reason that his conclusions are falsehoods based on faith.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:neptewn

jackspell wrote:
neptewn wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jackspell wrote:

 

Okay, so evolution is proven? That's funny.

 

 

the epistemology of positivism, please prove creation or admit your assertions are even less supported than the fledgling science of abiogenesis. Come on, Jack. We admit when we don't know. Why won't you?

 

 

You admit when you don't know? So you admit you don't have proof of the origin of life?

Correct. We also admit you don't either.

 

Awesome. That was the purpose of this thread. To show that any naturalist has to rely on "faith" to maintain his worldview. But answer this for me: if I was the operations supervisor for the powerball lottery, and I won 5 consecutive times, would you say 1. God made me win. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?

What claims have I made, that exist beyond the boundaries of science, that necessitate my world view? We can speculate based upon the perspective of evidence and a degree of probablity but these unknowns have no bearing upon the foundation of my beliefs. It would require faith if my ideology was dependent upon these gaps, this is where we differ. We are not analogous, when you quit framing argument as such, people will quit pulling the straws out.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Your arguments are bizarre

 

jackspell wrote:

Conclusion This demonstrates the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe, which I happen to call, God.

 

Please define beginning-less, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial and enormously powerful. And outline your concept of a creator of the universe. I have no idea what you are talking about and nor do you. 

Why your tedious teleology somehow absolves you of supplying us with a cause for your first cause, I have no idea. How did god come into being from nothing? It would be worse than magic. 

Your initial premise is an assertion that cannot be proved in relation to the nature of universes, given the formation of none have been observed. Logic will not avail you. 

And do try to understand - we are not the ones who insist we are right. We don't know the answers to first cause or abiogenesis - we just think you don't either. 

 

JACKSPELL'S FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT

 

(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.

(2) I say the universe must have a cause.

(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

(4) Therefore, God exists.

 

With support from:

 

JACKSPELL'S ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY

 

(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.

(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.

(3) Therefore, God exists. 

 

And....

 

JACKSPELL'S ARGUMENT FROM THE MEANING OF LIFE 

 

(1) What's the meaning of life?

(2) Atheist gives an answer.

(3) That's not what I believe.

(4) Therefore, God exists.

 

(Acknowledgement: Internet Infidels)

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Good post, Dig.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:
neptewn wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jackspell wrote:

 

Okay, so evolution is proven? That's funny.

 

 

the epistemology of positivism, please prove creation or admit your assertions are even less supported than the fledgling science of abiogenesis. Come on, Jack. We admit when we don't know. Why won't you?

 

 

You admit when you don't know? So you admit you don't have proof of the origin of life?

Correct. We also admit you don't either.

 

Awesome. That was the purpose of this thread. To show that any naturalist has to rely on "faith" to maintain his worldview. But answer this for me: if I was the operations supervisor for the powerball lottery, and I won 5 consecutive times, would you say 1. God made me win. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?

 

This is an incorrect assumption and you misunderstand science.

Let us rationalize your logic for the existence of your god.

 

Hypothesis (or educated guess)

1 - Educated guesses take observations and testing to show the validity of the hypothesis.

2 - Your religion can not be tested and your god can not be observed. It fails as a hypothesis.

3 - There for your claim is not an educated guess but a statement of your faith.

 

How ever if I apply this same reasoning to evolution...

1 - Educated guesses take observations and testing to show the validity of the hypothesis.

2 - Evolution can be tested and can be observed. It succeeds as a hypothesis.

3 - There for evolution becomes a working hypothesis.

 

Let's go a bit further...

1 - Observations from scientists such as Joseph Mendel and Charles Darwin lead to educated guesses that there are traits passed along each generation.

2 - Testing of these observations builds evidence in support of the hypothesis's such evolution and genetics.

3 - Laws of Mendel and Natural Selection are taken as factual because of the testing of observations.

 

 

The constant theme from theists is that "it is so incredible" or "so awesome" or "unmeasurable", etc that they shut down their rational thinking process and then "give it all up to their creator". It is as if you are sticking your head in the sand to avoid thinking about it any further.

The scientist constantly challenges what they observe or are told. We test things to see if they are true. We observe things to see if they are true.

Since we can not observe or test any god, any religion for the validity of their claims we reject them.

You continue to believe in them solely based on your faith.

And since we can not prove or disprove your faith we would be fools to debate it.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:A_Nony_Mouse

jackspell wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

jackspell wrote:
jimmy.williamson wrote:
Okay, so evolution is proven? That's funny. Maybe y'all need to read about a man by the name of Karl Popper. He is responsible for the "falsifiable" criterion of the scientific method. 

That is very simple. Popper is not a scientist.

Science never proves anything.

Falsifiability is his invention as a non-scientist.

That was simple. Any more nonsense?

 

 

prove

  [proov]  Show IPA verb, proved, proved orprov·en, prov·ing.verb (used with object)1.to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence orargument: to prove one's claim.2.Law to establish the authenticity or validity of (a will);probate.3.to give demonstration of by action.4.to subject to a test, experimentcomparison, analysis, or thelike, to determine quality, amount, acceptability,characteristics, etc.: to prove ore.5.to show (oneself) to have the character or ability expected ofone, especially through one's actions.http://sp.dictionary.com/en/i/dictionary/newserp/Sprite_Serp.png); background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; width: 4px; cursor: pointer; display: block; font: normal normal bold 11px/normal arial; height: 18px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 26px; padding-top: 5px; background-position: -402px -278px; background-repeat: repeat repeat; " class="more">EXPANDThis sure sounds like what the scientific method aims to do.  And you think you refuted my arguement? Really? So because Popper was a philosopher of science, his opinion is invalid? Dude, just because you spend your Saturday mornings watching Bill Nye The Science Guy, doesn't mean you can sit at the big boys table.  I am working on my case for the Christian God in another thread.  When it's done, you can post some more objections that are weak as fish piss.  

 

You want to talk science. I am not interested in what non-scientists put in dictionaries.

Proof applies only to math and logic NEVER science.

You can claim otherwise all you wish but you will be wrong. Nothing can change your

error to fact.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Good post, dig.

I recently have been studying fallacies more in depth so that I can see them as people talk or in their postings.

I knew previously several fallacies but didn't have a full grasp of the logic (or lack of).

 

Some one had posted, I believe in one of the threads on this site, a really awesome link to a website devoted to fallacies but for some reason I can't find it again.

 

I really enjoy taking the fallacy, twisting it, then throwing it back at them but with my belief system injected.

They usually don't have a reply because most people are smart enough to see the error in their logic but are too embarrassed to admit their mistake.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
These?

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Some one had posted, I believe in one of the threads on this site, a really awesome link to a website devoted to fallacies but for some reason I can't find it again.

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/part_8_language_problems_and_logical_fallacies

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:digitalbeachbum

x wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Some one had posted, I believe in one of the threads on this site, a really awesome link to a website devoted to fallacies but for some reason I can't find it again.

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/part_8_language_problems_and_logical_fallacies

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

 

Thanks! Yeah I knew about them.. but there was another site which I found a few days ago which was amazing. If I find it I'll post it.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:1. There is

jackspell wrote:
1.

There is nothing to consider, it has been. Only a person ignorant of 200+ years of biology, chemistry, and archeology could claim otherwise.

2: Who said that there was no organic matter involved? We've seen organic matter throughout the universe. It's relatively common. Which is one of the reasons the search for life off of Earth has so much fervour to it.

3: I don't have an answer ready for you. Don't know everything.

4: That's a misrepresentation, nothing was created. Evolution happens when copying errors remove information to form a more specialised function.
But the fossil record is the only available record for "how" it happened.

5: It isn't, so it shouldn't be. But it once was thought to be, because it can have an impact, and so that's the way it was taught. Natural selection is merely one way evolution can happen, and it isn't the most common or likely. The environment is by far the largest influence. The beauty of science is that when we learn more about something...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
... we refine the way it is

... we refine the way it is taught.

6: That question doesn't make sense.

7: That's your opinion. Living things don't look designed to me. Not unless I'm willing to entertain the idea that the designer was retarded. Why is life so fragile and why does it die so quickly and easily? Why are the sexual organs mixed with the waste disposal system? Why is it so easy to damage who someone is just by hitting them in the head? Why do we have to consume life in order to live? Why do we have lungs instead of a decentralised and more effecient intake system? Why do we have a tailbone?
I could literally go on for decades with design flaws that all life forms have, if in fact they were designed. They make a lot more sense as responses to environments and circumstances that may or may not still exist.

8: Same as 3.

9: Google it. I recently read an article on it, so it shouldn't be too hard to find. Since I didn't save the link, I'd have to google it to find it anyway, and you're the one who wants to know.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
10: They are neither

10: They are neither expected nor missing. I shake my head everytime this question is asked, because it demonstrates just how ignorant someone is. The fact of the matter is that we are extremely lucky to have as many fossils as we do. It requires very specific conditions to form a fossil. Those conditions are not common. So we would expect fossils to be as uncommon as the conditions they form in. And surprise! They are.

11: They don't. They've not changed relative to other species, but they've still changed significantly.

12: It didn't. "Blind" chemistry simply formed life. Life itself did the rest. Or do you credit the tire for going 80,000 km instead of the car?

13: I pretty well covered that in #7.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:If the

jackspell wrote:
If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms.

What you fail to understand is that every life form is transitional. A cat doesn't suddenly give birth to a dog or a T-Rex. Every generation displays slight changes that add up over large periods of time, until you get to a point where you can't identify them with their ancestry without causing confusion. Species are defined by people, and as such we must define them in such a way as to distinguish one animal from another.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:jackspell

Vastet wrote:
jackspell wrote:
If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms.
What you fail to understand is that every life form is transitional. A cat doesn't suddenly give birth to a dog or a T-Rex. Every generation displays slight changes that add up over large periods of time, until you get to a point where you can't identify them with their ancestry without causing confusion. Species are defined by people, and as such we must define them in such a way as to distinguish one animal from another.

In fact, jackspell, an animal like the crocoduck is what creationists should be looking for if they want to disprove the theory. Since, by your own admission, such an animal doesn't exist evolution is a solid explanation.

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life so I'll leave your abiogenesis stuff alone.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
 Here's the bottom line

 Here's the bottom line folks:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids, proteins, DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc.  If you're an atheist that is most likely a naturalist, since you have BELIEF IN SOMETHING WITHOUT PROOF, that is FAITH.  You can cry about it all you want, but until someone observes abiogenesis without intelligent design, you are relying heavily on faith.

Nobody has EVER observed an organism evolve beyond its Biological Classification system.  We have been working with E.Coli for over 100 years and NEVER has there been a single one of them evolve into anything other than E.Coli. NEVER! And if any of you have actually read into what evolutionary scientists say about the fossil record, you'd see that they ADMIT the lack of expected transitional fossils.  But that's a lot of your problems, you don't even do your own reading.  You rely on BLIND FAITH by not even checking into these things yourself.  That's pathetic.  I mean does anybody that knows what an exponent is really believe that random mutations are the sole source of all the information contained in the human genome? Or some of the even more complex genomes contained in some plants? I guess I take for granted everyone is as educated mathematically as I am, so let me simplify.  In 24 consecutive years, the E. Coli evolutionary experiment has been reproducing at a maximal rate, with every generation being observed and documented.  THE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY MUTATIONS THAT HAVE BECOME FIXATED IS BETWEEN 10 and 20.  

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
 There are more subatomic

 There are more subatomic particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans.  And there are particles that size, scattered throughout an area, that a beam of light, traveling about 186000 miles each second, would need 93,000,000,000 years to cross.  And the number of these particles is around 10^80.  Even if I grant you the cosmological constants necessary for the chemistry and conditions necessary for life to exist, the probability of a single called organism forming naturally is 10^57800.  A human being is around 4^360^110000.  Wow.  I see nobody will answer answer my question.  If a am operations manager of the Powerball Lotto, and I win 5 weeks in a row, was it 1. God's intervention. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?  My next post contains some of the anthropic coincidences that exist making a life permitting universe possible. 

 

 


A few of the Anthropic Coincidences (Fine-Tuning the Universe)


The Big-bang


Density-of-matter in the Big-bang


The inflationary Big-bang


Lambda in the inflationary Big-bang


The Strong Force


Gravity


Electrons & Protons


Carbon Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance had to be created for formation of carbon (via alpha particle collision with Beryllium-8) and then tuned to close to a specific energy, to enable a brief window of opportunity for formation of carbon.
  • Without this, there would be negligible carbon in the universe.
  • Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life (silicon for instance forms much shorter and less versatile chains that are not specified-complex enough).

Oxygen Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance for formation of oxygen had to be tuned to prevent complete cannibalization of carbon (via alpha-particle collision with carbon, resulting in oxygen).
  • If the oxygen-resonance were half a percent higher, there would be negligible carbon in the universe and on earth. Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life.

Particle masses

  • Proton, neutron and electron masses had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • For instance, free neutrons decay to form protons. If the proton mass were slightly higher, the opposite would happen, resulting in a universe full of neutronium.
  • There would be no elements (no hydrogen, oxygen, carbon) and no way to create the molecular-complexity required for life.

Weak Nuclear Force

  • The weak-nuclear force had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • Slightly stronger, and no helium or heavier elements would form. And there would be no means to create the molecular-complexity required for life.
  • Slightly weaker, and no hydrogen would remain (to provide fuel for steady-burning stars needed as sources of energy for life).
  • Also, supernova explosions would not be able to disperse the medium-to-heavy elements created in stars.
  • Elements such as carbon (for molecular chains basic to life), iron (for hemoglobin), copper and other elements used in life-forms were originally created in stars, then dispersed by supernova explosions, to finally reach/coalesce into earth…

Dimensions

  • The number of dimensions in our universe had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • The topological, and physical laws of the universe need more than two spatial-dimensions, and less than five extended-dimensions for stability and the complexity required for life…
  • This requirement is met in our universe, with 3 extended spatial-dimensions and 1 temporal dimension.

Carbon chemistry


Cosmological Flatness

  • Lee Smolin (physicist) estimates the epistemic-probability for the "equivalent-temperature" of the universe being such as to enable cosmological flatness, to be one part in 10^32.
  • Epistemic Probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 01

Quantum Gravity & Cosmological Flatness


The big-bang (reprise)


The list grows

  • The list (above) is by no means an exhaustive list of the Anthropic coincidences. There are many more such coincidences in the literature.
  • As I have mentioned, these Anthropic coincidences (and the need for them) are a very unexpected turn of events, as I consider an Atheistic Universe…
  • The Anthropic Coincidences were one set of evidence that pointed me away from Atheism and towards an Intelligent Designer of the Universe (i.e., God).

 

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: Here's the

jackspell wrote:

 Here's the bottom line folks:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids, proteins, DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc.  If you're an atheist that is most likely a naturalist, since you have BELIEF IN SOMETHING WITHOUT PROOF, that is FAITH.  You can cry about it all you want, but until someone observes abiogenesis without intelligent design, you are relying heavily on faith.

Nobody has EVER observed an organism evolve beyond its Biological Classification system.  We have been working with E.Coli for over 100 years and NEVER has there been a single one of them evolve into anything other than E.Coli. NEVER! And if any of you have actually read into what evolutionary scientists say about the fossil record, you'd see that they ADMIT the lack of expected transitional fossils.  But that's a lot of your problems, you don't even do your own reading.  You rely on BLIND FAITH by not even checking into these things yourself.  That's pathetic.  I mean does anybody that knows what an exponent is really believe that random mutations are the sole source of all the information contained in the human genome? Or some of the even more complex genomes contained in some plants? I guess I take for granted everyone is as educated mathematically as I am, so let me simplify.  In 24 consecutive years, the E. Coli evolutionary experiment has been reproducing at a maximal rate, with every generation being observed and documented.  THE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY MUTATIONS THAT HAVE BECOME FIXATED IS BETWEEN 10 and 20.  

Let me bottom line your bottom line:

1. Life from non-life is abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. Do we know how abiogenesis works? No, not yet (scientists are working on it). Does that mean we have to throw up "Goddidit" and stop thinking as you apparently have?

2. Evolution guarantees that you will never see animals jump from one clade (biological classification system) to another. As I said, finding such an animal is what you creationists need to do so you can disprove the theory. Happy hunting.

3. If you'd read what evolutionary biologists have written on the subject instead of trusting ID apologists who couldn't provide an honest report if their tongues were notarized, you'd know that we have so many transitional fossils that scientists are forced to ask questions about fossils like "Is this a mammal with reptilian qualities or is it a reptile with mammalian qualities?"

Stop making this so easy.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: There are

jackspell wrote:

 There are more subatomic particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans.  And there are particles that size, scattered throughout an area, that a beam of light, traveling about 186000 miles each second, would need 93,000,000,000 years to cross.  And the number of these particles is around 10^80.  Even if I grant you the cosmological constants necessary for the chemistry and conditions necessary for life to exist, the probability of a single called organism forming naturally is 10^57800.  A human being is around 4^360^110000.  Wow.  I see nobody will answer answer my question.  If a am operations manager of the Powerball Lotto, and I win 5 weeks in a row, was it 1. God's intervention. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?  My next post contains some of the anthropic coincidences that exist making a life permitting universe possible. 

 

 


A few of the Anthropic Coincidences (Fine-Tuning the Universe)


The Big-bang


Density-of-matter in the Big-bang


The inflationary Big-bang


Lambda in the inflationary Big-bang


The Strong Force


Gravity


Electrons & Protons


Carbon Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance had to be created for formation of carbon (via alpha particle collision with Beryllium-8) and then tuned to close to a specific energy, to enable a brief window of opportunity for formation of carbon.
  • Without this, there would be negligible carbon in the universe.
  • Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life (silicon for instance forms much shorter and less versatile chains that are not specified-complex enough).

Oxygen Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance for formation of oxygen had to be tuned to prevent complete cannibalization of carbon (via alpha-particle collision with carbon, resulting in oxygen).
  • If the oxygen-resonance were half a percent higher, there would be negligible carbon in the universe and on earth. Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life.

Particle masses

  • Proton, neutron and electron masses had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • For instance, free neutrons decay to form protons. If the proton mass were slightly higher, the opposite would happen, resulting in a universe full of neutronium.
  • There would be no elements (no hydrogen, oxygen, carbon) and no way to create the molecular-complexity required for life.

Weak Nuclear Force

  • The weak-nuclear force had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • Slightly stronger, and no helium or heavier elements would form. And there would be no means to create the molecular-complexity required for life.
  • Slightly weaker, and no hydrogen would remain (to provide fuel for steady-burning stars needed as sources of energy for life).
  • Also, supernova explosions would not be able to disperse the medium-to-heavy elements created in stars.
  • Elements such as carbon (for molecular chains basic to life), iron (for hemoglobin), copper and other elements used in life-forms were originally created in stars, then dispersed by supernova explosions, to finally reach/coalesce into earth…

Dimensions

  • The number of dimensions in our universe had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • The topological, and physical laws of the universe need more than two spatial-dimensions, and less than five extended-dimensions for stability and the complexity required for life…
  • This requirement is met in our universe, with 3 extended spatial-dimensions and 1 temporal dimension.

Carbon chemistry


Cosmological Flatness

  • Lee Smolin (physicist) estimates the epistemic-probability for the "equivalent-temperature" of the universe being such as to enable cosmological flatness, to be one part in 10^32.
  • Epistemic Probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 01

Quantum Gravity & Cosmological Flatness


The big-bang (reprise)


The list grows

  • The list (above) is by no means an exhaustive list of the Anthropic coincidences. There are many more such coincidences in the literature.
  • As I have mentioned, these Anthropic coincidences (and the need for them) are a very unexpected turn of events, as I consider an Atheistic Universe…
  • The Anthropic Coincidences were one set of evidence that pointed me away from Atheism and towards an Intelligent Designer of the Universe (i.e., God).

 

Can you tell me what any of this means or do you just have faith that you are ripping off the right people?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Fallacious appeal to complexity

jackspell wrote:

 There are more subatomic particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans.  And there are particles that size, scattered throughout an area, that a beam of light, traveling about 186000 miles each second, would need 93,000,000,000 years to cross.  And the number of these particles is around 10^80.  Even if I grant you the cosmological constants necessary for the chemistry and conditions necessary for life to exist, the probability of a single called organism forming naturally is 10^57800.  A human being is around 4^360^110000.  Wow.  I see nobody will answer answer my question.  If a am operations manager of the Powerball Lotto, and I win 5 weeks in a row, was it 1. God's intervention. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?  My next post contains some of the anthropic coincidences that exist making a life permitting universe possible. 

 

 


A few of the Anthropic Coincidences (Fine-Tuning the Universe)


The Big-bang


Density-of-matter in the Big-bang


The inflationary Big-bang


Lambda in the inflationary Big-bang


The Strong Force


Gravity


Electrons & Protons


Carbon Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance had to be created for formation of carbon (via alpha particle collision with Beryllium-8) and then tuned to close to a specific energy, to enable a brief window of opportunity for formation of carbon.
  • Without this, there would be negligible carbon in the universe.
  • Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life (silicon for instance forms much shorter and less versatile chains that are not specified-complex enough).

Oxygen Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance for formation of oxygen had to be tuned to prevent complete cannibalization of carbon (via alpha-particle collision with carbon, resulting in oxygen).
  • If the oxygen-resonance were half a percent higher, there would be negligible carbon in the universe and on earth. Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life.

Particle masses

  • Proton, neutron and electron masses had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • For instance, free neutrons decay to form protons. If the proton mass were slightly higher, the opposite would happen, resulting in a universe full of neutronium.
  • There would be no elements (no hydrogen, oxygen, carbon) and no way to create the molecular-complexity required for life.

Weak Nuclear Force

  • The weak-nuclear force had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • Slightly stronger, and no helium or heavier elements would form. And there would be no means to create the molecular-complexity required for life.
  • Slightly weaker, and no hydrogen would remain (to provide fuel for steady-burning stars needed as sources of energy for life).
  • Also, supernova explosions would not be able to disperse the medium-to-heavy elements created in stars.
  • Elements such as carbon (for molecular chains basic to life), iron (for hemoglobin), copper and other elements used in life-forms were originally created in stars, then dispersed by supernova explosions, to finally reach/coalesce into earth…

Dimensions

  • The number of dimensions in our universe had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • The topological, and physical laws of the universe need more than two spatial-dimensions, and less than five extended-dimensions for stability and the complexity required for life…
  • This requirement is met in our universe, with 3 extended spatial-dimensions and 1 temporal dimension.

Carbon chemistry


Cosmological Flatness

  • Lee Smolin (physicist) estimates the epistemic-probability for the "equivalent-temperature" of the universe being such as to enable cosmological flatness, to be one part in 10^32.
  • Epistemic Probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 01

Quantum Gravity & Cosmological Flatness


The big-bang (reprise)


The list grows

  • The list (above) is by no means an exhaustive list of the Anthropic coincidences. There are many more such coincidences in the literature.
  • As I have mentioned, these Anthropic coincidences (and the need for them) are a very unexpected turn of events, as I consider an Atheistic Universe…
  • The Anthropic Coincidences were one set of evidence that pointed me away from Atheism and towards an Intelligent Designer of the Universe (i.e., God).

 

 

Direct material proof of god, please, or admit your assumption. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: There are

jackspell wrote:

 There are more subatomic particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans.  And there are particles that size, scattered throughout an area, that a beam of light, traveling about 186000 miles each second, would need 93,000,000,000 years to cross.  And the number of these particles is around 10^80.  Even if I grant you the cosmological constants necessary for the chemistry and conditions necessary for life to exist, the probability of a single called organism forming naturally is 10^57800.  A human being is around 4^360^110000.  Wow.  I see nobody will answer answer my question.  If a am operations manager of the Powerball Lotto, and I win 5 weeks in a row, was it 1. God's intervention. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?  My next post contains some of the anthropic coincidences that exist making a life permitting universe possible.  

1 - how big is the glass? If the glass was the size of a sub-atomic particle then no, there aren't as many as all the water in all the oceans.

2 - "scattered throughout an area", please define an area as compared to what unit of measurement?

3 - If your area is the width of a sub-atomic particle then no, it wouldn't take a beam of light 93 million years to travel across it.

Please.. this is why you should not cut and paste stuff that isn't your own thoughts.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:1. Do you consider

Quote:
1. Do you consider evolution to be proven scientifically?

REALLY? What possessed you to ask such a stupid fucking question?

No we just pulled evolution out of a Cracker Jack box.

I'm Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room, our top story.........DUH!

DNA backs up evolution. The rest of your childish list I wont even bother with because this question says all about your ignorance of science.

And the really stupid part of it is ANY IDIOT can put a picture of a tiger and a domestic house cat and FUCKING KNOW at one time they had common ancestors.

Do us a favor and NEVER sit on a jury in a murder case where DNA evidence is used, you'd be the idiot who lets the killer go free.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:1. Do

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
1. Do you consider evolution to be proven scientifically?

REALLY? What possessed you to ask such a stupid fucking question?

No we just pulled evolution out of a Cracker Jack box.

I'm Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room, our top story.........DUH!

DNA backs up evolution. The rest of your childish list I wont even bother with because this question says all about your ignorance of science.

And the really stupid part of it is ANY IDIOT can put a picture of a tiger and a domestic house cat and FUCKING KNOW at one time they had common ancestors.

Do us a favor and NEVER sit on a jury in a murder case where DNA evidence is used, you'd be the idiot who lets the killer go free.

 

Define how something becomes proven, scientifically.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 There are more subatomic particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans.  And there are particles that size, scattered throughout an area, that a beam of light, traveling about 186000 miles each second, would need 93,000,000,000 years to cross.  And the number of these particles is around 10^80.  Even if I grant you the cosmological constants necessary for the chemistry and conditions necessary for life to exist, the probability of a single called organism forming naturally is 10^57800.  A human beingis around 4^360^110000.  Wow.  I see nobody will answer answer my question.  If a am operations manager of the Powerball Lotto, and I win 5 weeks in a row, was it 1. God's intervention. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?  My next post contains some of the anthropic coincidences that exist making a life permitting universe possible.  

1 - how big is the glass? If the glass was the size of a sub-atomic particle then no, there aren't as many as all the water in all the oceans.

2 - "scattered throughout an area", please define an area as compared to what unit of measurement?

3 - If your area is the width of a sub-atomic particle then no, it wouldn't take a beam of light 93 million years to travel across it.

Please.. this is why you should not cut and paste stuff that isn't your own thoughts.

 

Every word of that is my own thoughts.
1. Lets say, 16 ounces.
2. Spherical
3. Like I clearly said, across an area that WOULD TAKE 93 billion years to cross. That is what we educated Christians call "light years". I apologize for assuming you knew anything about science. Not surprising, considering you hold the same worldview as Brian, and he clearly has an extra chromosome.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 There are more subatomic particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans.  And there are particles that size, scattered throughout an area, that a beam of light, traveling about 186000 miles each second, would need 93,000,000,000 years to cross.  And the number of these particles is around 10^80.  Even if I grant you the cosmological constants necessary for the chemistry and conditions necessary for life to exist, the probability of a single called organism forming naturally is 10^57800.  A human being is around 4^360^110000.  Wow.  I see nobody will answer answer my question.  If a am operations manager of the Powerball Lotto, and I win 5 weeks in a row, was it 1. God's intervention. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?  My next post contains some of the anthropic coincidences that exist making a life permitting universe possible.  

1 - how big is the glass? If the glass was the size of a sub-atomic particle then no, there aren't as many as all the water in all the oceans.

2 - "scattered throughout an area", please define an area as compared to what unit of measurement?

3 - If your area is the width of a sub-atomic particle then no, it wouldn't take a beam of light 93 million years to travel across it.

Please.. this is why you should not cut and paste stuff that isn't your own thoughts.

 

Answer my Lotto question, unless you are too much of a coward like everyone else apparently is.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:jackspell

jcgadfly wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 Here's the bottom line folks:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids, proteins, DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc.  If you're an atheist that is most likely a naturalist, since you have BELIEF IN SOMETHING WITHOUT PROOF, that is FAITH.  You can cry about it all you want, but until someone observes abiogenesis without intelligent design, you are relying heavily on faith.

Nobody has EVER observed an organism evolve beyond its Biological Classification system.  We have been working with E.Coli for over 100 years and NEVER has there been a single one of them evolve into anything other than E.Coli. NEVER! And if any of you have actually read into what evolutionary scientists say about the fossil record, you'd see that they ADMIT the lack of expected transitional fossils.  But that's a lot of your problems, you don't even do your own reading.  You rely on BLIND FAITH by not even checking into these things yourself.  That's pathetic.  I mean does anybody that knows what an exponent is really believe that random mutations are the sole source of all the information contained in the human genome? Or some of the even more complex genomes contained in some plants? I guess I take for granted everyone is as educated mathematically as I am, so let me simplify.  In 24 consecutive years, the E. Coli evolutionary experiment has been reproducing at a maximal rate, with every generation being observed and documented.  THE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY MUTATIONS THAT HAVE BECOME FIXATED IS BETWEEN 10 and 20.  

Let me bottom line your bottom line:

1. Life from non-life is abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. Do we know how abiogenesis works? No, not yet (scientists are working on it). Does that mean we have to throw up "Goddidit" and stop thinking as you apparently have?

2. Evolution guarantees that you will never see animals jump from one clade (biological classification system) to another. As I said, finding such an animal is what you creationists need to do so you can disprove the theory. Happy hunting.

3. If you'd read what evolutionary biologists have written on the subject instead of trusting ID apologists who couldn't provide an honest report if their tongues were notarized, you'd know that we have so many transitional fossils that scientists are forced to ask questions about fossils like "Is this a mammal with reptilian qualities or is it a reptile with mammalian qualities?"

Stop making this so easy.

 

1. If you had read the initial post, you wouldn't look like an ass by trying to explain to me what I have clearly demonstrated to know.
2. Oh, okay. Find proof that God doesn't exist to DISPROVE IT. Happy hunting.
3. By all means, send me the link.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig