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


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
As for your boxer, he'll

As for your boxer, he'll live (maybe, but boxers die fairly often, so probably not), but at best he'll be brain damaged. Guess that thick skull isn't as protective as you thought.

8: Doesn't mean yours is right, it just means I'm more honest than you.

9: Like how you've wasted the time of anyone who ever read any of your posts? lol

AGAIN you skip points. This is getting boring. You're too stupid to provide a challenge.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:9: Like how

Vastet wrote:

9: Like how you've wasted the time of anyone who ever read any of your posts? lol AGAIN you skip points. This is getting boring. You're too stupid to provide a challenge.

I got bored when I saw his first post.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
We should probably all relax a bit

 

jackspell wrote:

Pay attention Dickhead. I AM ASKING FOR YOUR EXPLANATION OF HOW OUR SPECIES CAME TO BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IF YOU CANT PROVIDE ON, STOP KNOCKING MINE, DIPSHIT.

 

It's pretty obvious that humans are a byproduct of organic life so the nub of the contention is abiogenesis. 

But I am curious to know what your explanation is for how our species came to be.

Given you're expecting Bri to supply you a testable explanation as to first cause, then any old empirical proof will do.

Where did we come from Jack, in your own words? From what mechanism?

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


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jackspell wrote:

Pay attention Dickhead. I AM ASKING FOR YOUR EXPLANATION OF HOW OUR SPECIES CAME TO BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IF YOU CANT PROVIDE ON, STOP KNOCKING MINE, DIPSHIT.

 

It's pretty obvious that humans are a byproduct of organic life so the nub of the contention is abiogenesis. 

But I am curious to know what your explanation is for how our species came to be.

Given you're expecting Bri to supply you a testable explanation as to first cause, then any old empirical proof will do.

Where did we come from Jack, in your own words? From what mechanism?

You are debating faith. People of faith can spit out shit from their mouth and make up any thing they want and believe it because they think their bible said it is so. Early earther nutsuckers do this often speaking about dinosaurs living with human because they know dinosaurs lived but they couldn't have lived X millions of years ago because their good book says the earth is 6,000 years old.

It's amazing that they pick and chose their discussions, subject, questions and avoid any thing which makes their ego get kicked in like a two bit whore. Which is why when you ask them to explain more detailed stuff they can't explain it because their bible does not have any information.

Ask them to explain why the evidence appears that the moon is made up of two smaller moons and that the collision would have been so amazing to watch in the sky that I guess every one was too flabbergasted to write it down or talk about it. Hmmm or could it be that it happened millions of years before humans walked the earth?

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
One thing that intrigues me

 

Is what Jack wants when he asks us for proof. It's obviously empirical proof he wants. When a theist demands a transitional form or proof of abiogenesis they can see with their own eyes, we can see the inconsistency they apply to standards of evidence. 

Either empiricism is viable all the time or it is never viable at all. There's a latent dependency on empirical evidence on the basis of sense data that christians instinctively cling to when they insist on seeing the crocoduck.

 

Graphic Artist's impression

 

Fossil recently discovered...

 

fossil

 

 

 

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


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: Is

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Is what Jack wants when he asks us for proof. It's obviously empirical proof he wants. When a theist demands a transitional form or proof of abiogenesis they can see with their own eyes, we can see the inconsistency they apply to standards of evidence. 

Either empiricism is viable all the time or it is never viable at all. There's a latent dependency on empirical evidence on the basis of sense data that christians instinctively cling to when they insist on seeing the crocoduck.

 

 

 

Cool. Another transitional fossil.

 

This is a long video and if you want to skip over the first 4 minutes you won't really miss anything. The speaker starts at 4 minutes, but he talks about a bunch of preliminary stuff (which many will be bored) but the good stuff starts at around 30 minutes.

The story however I found extremely interesting. I watched the entire video.

BTW - at 1:03:00 is an awesome question because creationists will always say "oh, find another transitional fossil..."

I also like the researcher's point of view about, "now I can ask new questions..." and this is important because as science finds new evidence, new questions can be asked.


 

 

http://creationistidiocy.blogspot.com/2009/02/where-are-transitional-fossils.html

 

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 LOL

 LOL


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Is the big bang the only

Is the big bang the only bang that happened? 

If we don't know we cannot make any assumption on it being fine tuned.

We cannot justify calling them coincidences if we don't know how many times a bang has occurred.

There could have been a near infinite amount of big bangs that all failed to start a universe that could not support life.  There could also be a near infinite number that did create life and in those universes (if we can call them that) there could be a species that had the intelligence to ask the questions of why.

Your probabilities are based on the assumption that this is the only universe event.

If there are an infinite number of possible universe random chance becomes certainty.

 

Curious where did you get your numbers from? I am assuming you didn't pull them out of the ether.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:Is the big bang

Magus wrote:

Is the big bang the only bang that happened? 

If we don't know we cannot make any assumption on it being fine tuned.

We cannot justify calling them coincidences if we don't know how many times a bang has occurred.

There could have been a near infinite amount of big bangs that all failed to start a universe that could not support life.  There could also be a near infinite number that did create life and in those universes (if we can call them that) there could be a species that had the intelligence to ask the questions of why.

Your probabilities are based on the assumption that this is the only universe event.

If there are an infinite number of possible universe random chance becomes certainty.

 

Curious where did you get your numbers from? I am assuming you didn't pull them out of the ether.

 

I know William Lane Craig likes to throw out such numbers, that may perhaps be the source. Most definitely though, unless we know how big the universe is, how long it has been around (the answer to both can really be limitless, as complicated a concept that is to fathom for our brains) and perhaps even how many times the very matter we see and know around us has been in a pre big bang state before the one that created the current universe we know.

The fact that Craig doesn't mention the potential size of the universe, and the potential for it being eternal in itself, means he more than likely did throw out the numbers based on the assumption that this has only had the chance to happen once.

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.