- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 23 2009,16:13) “Fanciful”, uh yeah, that's for sure. As Norman Geisler said “I don't have enough faith to be an athiest”! My version is that the Almightly Creator spoke creation into existence. It was a supernatural act by a supernatural being, and no i'm not privy to the details, sorry. Life created life, intellengence created intelligence, a mind created minds etc etc.
In other words – “I got nothing”…..
Stuart
Not true Stu! He he…
In answer to WIT's question I would say that animal types were made reproductive-able, it's not a problematic issue for the creationist. I am yet to read an answer from you to his question.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 23 2009,18:12) Not true Stu! He he… In answer to WIT's question I would say that animal types were made reproductive-able, it's not a problematic issue for the creationist. I am yet to read an answer from you to his question.
It's not a problem for a creationist because you don't actually have anything to contribute. What a joke your nothing cosmology and anti-science mentality is.The video explains the answer to your question. You can not believe it, that's fine. I don't believe your nonsense, which is no explanation for anything anyway.
Stuart
I gave an answer Stu, you posted a youtube clip that you admit was in part “fanciful”!
BTW, i'm not antiscience – I have a post graduate degree in science and work as a scientist.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 23 2009,20:01) I gave an answer Stu, you posted a youtube clip that you admit was in part “fanciful”! BTW, i'm not antiscience – I have a post graduate degree in science and work as a scientist.
You mock the nature of science, especially the degree of confidence needed to move from hypothesis to theory. And all that time you have nothing to put up against intelligent speculation about abiogenesis. You cannot even show that is was not one of the other gods that didit.You've got nothing. Your science background should have you well versed in “Put up or shut up” that science demands. You are making bold claims without putting up.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 23 2009,20:21) You mock the nature of science, especially the degree of confidence needed to move from hypothesis to theory.
Have I? When? Are you holding the clip you posted up as some exemplar of scientific practice Stu? It was laughable..and you know it.Quote And all that time you have nothing to put up against intelligent speculation about abiogenesis.
I gave an answer. Where is yours?Quote You cannot even show that is was not one of the other gods that didit.
Are you asking me to prove a negative Stu?Quote You've got nothing. Your science background should have you well versed in “Put up or shut up” that science demands. You are making bold claims without putting up.
My background has taught me that hypotheses should be falsifiable and are proven by controlled, repeated empirical testing. Since we cannot do that with the 'origin of life' then yes it comes down to the plausibility of the competing theories. One thing we can do is apply occam's razor to them. How many assumptions did the video make? How many did I make?BTW Stuart, what are your credentials in science?
Is 1:18
Quote Have I? When? Are you holding the clip you posted up as some exemplar of scientific practice Stu? It was laughable..and you know it.
No. I don’t know. Precisely what was laughable about it? What do you have to refute it?I gave an answer. Where is yours?
You gave no answer. You believe animals were created ‘reproducible’. What a joke of a response that is to an attempt to provide a candidate explanation for all living things, including plants, fungi, amoeba etc.Stu: You cannot even show that is was not one of the other gods that didit.
Quote Are you asking me to prove a negative Stu?
Some evidence for your claims would be a start.Quote My background has taught me that hypotheses should be falsifiable and are proven by controlled, repeated empirical testing.
Hypotheses are intelligent guesses. Theories are the things that should meet your criteria.Quote Since we cannot do that with the 'origin of life' then yes it comes down to the plausibility of the competing theories. One thing we can do is apply occam's razor to them. How many assumptions did the video make? How many did I make?
No, it comes down to competing hypotheses. You didn’t SAY ANYTHING. Occams razor can only be applied when you have two alternatives to compare. We stilll only have the one presented in the video at the moment.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 22 2009,16:49) bodhitharta Quote You must understand three things
1. There is no evolution without reproduction
2. There is no evolution without Metabolism
3. There is no evolution without waste management
I disagree. Only no.1 is essential. Viruses evolve at high speed, yet do not perform no.2 or no.3.Quote Now, once you understand that you will then have to consider in sexual reproduction you would have had to have 2 source organisms that had the three functions above to reproduce sexually and both would have had to have viable DNA but the funny thing is all this would have had to happen in a single life span of both organisms during a time when they were even capable of reproduction i.e. Synchronized random mutations which of course in nature SRM's do not exist.
No, you just invented them as a strawman of biology. Although there is such a thing as convergent evolution, where the same way of doing a job is achieved from different evolutionary pathways.Quote If you go with asexual then you run into a viability problem as well as diversity limitations causing a lineage death.
Please do think hard, but I assure you that what I am saying is correct.
Oh please. The percentage of species on the planet that reproduce sexually is well in the minority. It was probably 3 billion years after the first living cells arose that sexual reproduction first appeared.Quote Also note: I wouldn't care if evolution was valid or not as it would not alter my belief in God one bit,
What has that got to do with it? Why spoil a perfectly dull expression of biological ignorance by use of the ‘g’ word? Of course it is pretty clear that you are regurgitating, without understanding, soundbites from creationist websites.Quote I am just stating the obvious when looking from a non-invested scientific view, in other words I have nothing to lose by sharing honest data and I also have nothing to gain, so I have no reason to deceive.
OK. How about you read the Wikipedia pages on evolution, sexual reproduction and genetics then get back to us.Quote Be honest, what do you really know about Evolution or the neccessary physiology needed for it to occur?
A great deal more than you by the look of it. And I last formally studied biology when I was 15 years old. That is when I learned about viruses. Did you pay attention at school?Quote What do you know about boundary species and what effect it would have on a single specie population?
What is your definition of boundary species? It can be what a botanist calls the hedges at the edges of a garden.Quote You don't understand that Commonality of DNA is further evidence against evolution than for it. Even sheep and goats are very similar and totally different and having different number of chromosomes so can you deperate the sheep from the goats and understand anything from it?
Is that statement supposed to have a point behind it? I can’t fathom one. Our closest cousins the other great apes; chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas and gibbons all have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46. Do you know why that is?Quote Here is your free science tuition.
Just as well, I certainly wouldn’t be paying you!Stuart
Stu,Viruses are not independent living organisms as they need a host, I suppose you may have known that but maybe you didn't but now you do.
Also, you obviously didn't know that reproduction cannot occur without metabolism as metabolism is a product of growth.
Also, you certainly did not understand that waste management is factual in all life as assimilation is neccessary for metabolism which is primary for growth which is essential to life.
I waited patiently to see exactly how much you knew and what I have found is that while you can read you lack the ability to understand some very basic concepts.
Metabolism is the set of chemical reactions that occur in living organisms in order to maintain life. These processes allow organisms to grow and reproduce, maintain their structures, and respond to their environments.
You cannot have 1 or 3 without 2.
You also do not understand what occurs at the boundary of a special type do you?
I will help you…Sterility.
Humans have 46 Chromosomes because their Humans so don't make a monkey out of yourself.
BTW, you wouldn't pay for a free tuition.
Gentleman,
Thanks for the “free tuition”. Unfortunately, this is all starting to get above my head. I haven't studied biochemistry in more than a decade! I'll have to add this to my growing list of subjects about which to become more educated.
Until then, I will admit to being biased to the idea that the non-living cannot beget the living. Ultimately, life is more than just organic chemistry. It's about consciousness – an essential quality of life that seems to go beyond mere physicality. But, that's a whole different topic for a different thread.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 24 2009,10:19) Gentleman, Thanks for the “free tuition”. Unfortunately, this is all starting to get above my head. I haven't studied biochemistry in more than a decade! I'll have to add this to my growing list of subjects about which to become more educated.
Until then, I will admit to being biased to the idea that the non-living cannot beget the living. Ultimately, life is more than just organic chemistry. It's about consciousness – an essential quality of life that seems to go beyond mere physicality. But, that's a whole different topic for a different thread.
You could just say “I don't know” and not succumb to your superstitions until you have more to go on!Stuart
bodhitharta
Quote Viruses are not independent living organisms as they need a host, I suppose you may have known that but maybe you didn't but now you do.
Yes I learned that when I was 15. You asked specifically about what can evolve, and this is an example of something that can evolve and has only one of your three life processes.Quote Also, you obviously didn't know that reproduction cannot occur without metabolism as metabolism is a product of growth.
Reproduction cannot occur without metabolism today. I thought we were discussing abiogenesis. You are committing the logical fallacy of composition.Quote Also, you certainly did not understand that waste management is factual in all life as assimilation is neccessary for metabolism which is primary for growth which is essential to life.
How can you tell that I didn’t understand that? Because I gave you an example of something that can EVOLVE (your point) without needing to excrete?Quote I waited patiently to see exactly how much you knew and what I have found is that while you can read you lack the ability to understand some very basic concepts.
I don’t lack any of these understandings. The problem is you have just thrown a whole lot of biological concepts together without joining them into any kind of coherent argument, I assume in order to appear impressive. I’m afraid you do not impress me.Quote Metabolism is the set of chemical reactions that occur in living organisms in order to maintain life. These processes allow organisms to grow and reproduce, maintain their structures, and respond to their environments.
You cannot have 1 or 3 without 2.
Are you trying to be smart? The model of abiogenesis in the video I posted, with which I do not necessarily entirely agree, makes it very clear the proposed models of nutrition and excretion. Did you not bother to watch it?Quote You also do not understand what occurs at the boundary of a special type do you? I will help you…Sterility.
You called it a boundary species before. What are you talking about? Do you know?Quote Humans have 46 Chromosomes because their Humans so don't make a monkey out of yourself.
Bzzzzt. Wrong. Have you read those Wikipedia pages yet? Most of your ignornance on display here would be cured if your could retain even the basics from that information.Quote BTW, you wouldn't pay for a free tuition.
Go back and read. If you are literate.Stuart
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 23 2009,16:13) “Fanciful”, uh yeah, that's for sure. As Norman Geisler said “I don't have enough faith to be an athiest”! My version is that the Almightly Creator spoke creation into existence. It was a supernatural act by a supernatural being, and no i'm not privy to the details, sorry. Life created life, intellengence created intelligence, a mind created minds etc etc.
Amen to that. Common sense is quite refreshing.Stu I think you are out of your depth. Just admit you know nothing and gracefully bow out or give good answers and evidence. Rants are funny, but no one takes them seriously. Sorry if you thought you were dazzling us with brilliance. Instead you are espousing the theory of nothing and it is laughable.
Common sense says that if nothing created everything, then nothing wasn't really nothing, but was something all along.
Like I said to you once before. Think of nothing and then think of how nothing can become something. OK…….
You know what that is called Stu? It is either a miracle or magic.
I believe in a God of miracles who is beyond us and greater than his own creation. It is not hard to imagine someone greater than the universe can do things that we call miracles.
You Stu believe in magic, the sort that is wishful thinking. Magic is an illusion Stu. It is there for entertainment purposes. You were never meant to believe in magic. The correct response to magic is to toss a couple of coins at the magician. He has a family to feed after all.
Quote (t8 @ April 24 2009,22:20) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 23 2009,16:13) “Fanciful”, uh yeah, that's for sure. As Norman Geisler said “I don't have enough faith to be an athiest”! My version is that the Almightly Creator spoke creation into existence. It was a supernatural act by a supernatural being, and no i'm not privy to the details, sorry. Life created life, intellengence created intelligence, a mind created minds etc etc.
Amen to that. Common sense is quite refreshing.
So now who is embracing nothing cosmology?Stuart
t8
Quote Stu I think you are out of your depth. Just admit you know nothing and gracefully bow out or give good answers and evidence.
Hypocrite.Quote Rants are funny, but no one takes them seriously. Sorry if you thought you were dazzling us with brilliance. Instead you are espousing the theory of nothing and it is laughable.
Don’t pretend you understand my answers. It does not become you.Quote Common sense says that if nothing created everything, then nothing wasn't really nothing, but was something all along. Like I said to you once before. Think of nothing and then think of how nothing can become something. OK…….
You know what that is called Stu? It is either a miracle or magic.
And who says that common sense has anything useful to contribute to understanding an uncommon situation? You might also care to concentrate on the subject of the thread, otherwise people might think you are trying to deflect attention away from the absurdity of creationist claims herein.Quote I believe in a God of miracles who is beyond us and greater than his own creation. It is not hard to imagine someone greater than the universe can do things that we call miracles. True. Many appeal to their Imaginary Friend.
Do you have anything to actually contribute to the thread? You know, biology?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 24 2009,23:27) Don’t pretend you understand my answers. It does not become you.
Nice one. Got any more?Quote (Stu @ April 24 2009,23:27) And who says that common sense has anything useful to contribute to understanding an uncommon situation?
Ah hah! You condemn yourself.You write God off because you cannot understand him, do not believe his existence is logical, or is common sense.
What was that word you called me again? It began with H… Sounded a bit like Hypocritter or something.
Quote (t8 @ April 24 2009,23:37) Quote (Stu @ April 24 2009,23:27) And who says that common sense has anything useful to contribute to understanding an uncommon situation?
Ah hah! You condemn yourself.You write God off because you cannot understand him, do not believe his existence is logical, or is common sense.
What was that word you called me again? It began with H… Sounded a bit like Hypocritter or something.
You are a hypocrite.And a creator of strawmen.
I conclude there are no gods of any kind because there is no evidence for any. If you consider that unreasonable then you are also a hypocrite for invoking common sense.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
