Reply With Quote
Spoken like someone that can't spell...
Spelling smack? that is so 1999! come on TLongII raise the bar!
Spoken like someone that can't spell...
Sorry if my first post was condescending...
Seriously though, your treatment of z0sa left much to be desired for someone who was merely trying to settle the issues.
You didn't just state your opinions... you stated them as facts - condescendingly so.
Yeah, years ago. But he is still evolving.
Disingenuous??? Even the genomes of the most simple retro-viruses are 100's of times more complex than a pick-up truck... Size isn't everything. You couldn't even get the earth to naturally produce the alloys, or the plastics, or anything remotely resembling an insulated wire, much less a working battery. How then would an en y such as a truck be created from scratch unless it were designed??? Every part serves an individual purpose, and they all serve a larger one.
Like most naysayers you are failing to see that the complexity we speak of lies beyond the empirical breakdown of the molecules in question, it lies beyond their high-energy state arrangements, it lies in the information contained by the molecules themselves - in their biological directives.
IMO the codified messages that form the basis of life have no natural origin...
Oh and if you had actually bothered to read to what I wrote you would have noticed I clearly defined what evolutionary theory can and cannot address.
I stated that the evolutionary theory is inherently silent on the origins issue. It only addresses the dynamics of genotypical change without stating how genetic material first came into being. So how could the metaphor be a lie about evolutionary science??? I'm talking origins here. Again, the issue has always been abiogenesis. Which I'm fairly certain remains unproven.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 03-02-2009 at 11:12 AM.
I can only wonder why a person decides that the it's the other side that is the one that seem to have the strong passion and the relentless determination to prove points.
see: Behe
cmon.......just say the words "irreducible complexity" already
how exactly is the issue abiogenesis? It's only an issue for the 7 day creationists.Oh and if you had actually bothered to read to what I wrote you would have noticed I clearly defined what evolutionary theory can and cannot address.
I stated that the evolutionary theory is inherently silent on the origins issue. It only addresses the dynamics of genotypical change without stating how genetic material first came into being. So how could the metaphor be a lie about evolutionary science??? I'm talking origins here. Again, the issue has always been abiogenesis. Which I'm fairly certain remains unproven.
Evolution describes how the 2009 Ford F350 evolved from a horse and buggy........it does not try to prove that the it sprung spontaneously from nothingness.
See.... this is where you have lept from science to faith. Eventual certainty???
I guess you keep leaning towards your infinite multiverse model...
Let me see if I'm catching your drift...
What you're saying is that you do believe in GOD, but you don't necessarily buy into the notion that He was directly involved with the creation of Life... the moment 'Life' sprung into existence... GOD simply created the Universe... but knew all along that His universal model would produce a biological en y, some point down the road... indirectly?
Is that your GOD theory in a nuts ?
what exactly is your drift?
Is it not possible for God to use evolution to create man?
Ding, ding, ding!!!!
You just answered your own question...
My qualm is not with micro-evolution... it is with people's mistaken inference that evolution addresses the origins issue when it clearly does not... And that they would then, incorrectly use said theory to justify their ideological beliefs. Evolution cannot be used as an argument in favor of atheism...
What exactly is your quarrel?
It is possible. Yes.
But again, I wasn't debating that. I'm debating whether or not evolution can even take place if He doesn't directly create Life to begin with.
funny, it's usually the creationists that argue against evolution to justify their ideological beliefs. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anyone on here arguing that evolution = atheism.
My quarrel is when people think that if evolution is going to be taught in science class that creation should as well.
that's a philosophical debate at this point and I don't think anyone wants to argue for or against that but you.......unless I missed someone's post somewhere.
Yes we wouldn't want both sides of the issues. How is the weather in China?
I don't believe creationism should be taught in the classrooms... I've been on this forum for over 4 years and have yet to support such a proposition.
Students however, should not be duped into believing that evolution addresses anything beyond the scope of the theory. Such agendas have no place in a public classroom.
Your right the schools need to stick with books of actual events.
It all depends on how much sleep I got the night before.
After a good night's rest, I realized I was a bit too cranky. Apologies to all.
Hmmm example?
I am sure I can be condescending at times, but generally try to avoid that.
BTW, sorry about going off. I took it a step too far, and took out some of the angrier words. It was still a bit irritating, but I overreacted a bit. Once again: apolgoies.
That's just it. I would be willing to bet a good deal of money that virtually never really happens.
Actually the experiments with the man-made enzymes, and other similar experiments show that it does.
If some change, even if it adds to the genome, provides an adaptive advantage, then that change and the organism that embodies that change become dominant fairly quickly.
1) Viruses came about after single celled organisms, or quite possibly were simply around in some very basic, simple form when single cells arose, and became more complex as time went by along with those single celled organisms.
We're not talking about throwing together a whole cell from parts, instantly from scratch.
We are talking about fairly simple molecules, such as the enzymes from the article I mentioned.
Neither the enzymes themselves, the proteins they are composed of, or the RNA they use to replicate themselves with are functioning cells.
The whole experiment showed how little information is required to produce something capable of self replication.
I will ask again:
What happens when we find that very simple molecules, on the order of 10 base pairs or so can reproduce?
Organic molecules that consist of nothing more complex than a chain of hydrocarbons capable of reproducing themselves, however inefficiently, from more basic components would certainly fit the bill for what got the whole thing kicking.
Their existence is certainly suggested by the theory of evolution, and if the theory's prediction about this pans out, then where is your last citadel of denial, abiogenesis?
Will you then fall back to the keep of "but, but, but, that is too complex to be simple chance?", despite what we found?
RandomGuy,
you are debating EVOLUTION!! on a forum against some religious loony phenomanul.
there are over 10000000 papers published on evolution. if he has some sort of ground breaking evidence to shatter evolution, he could publish it and change almost every scientific mind in the world.
he's just arguing mumbo jumbo with you. creationism has no proof, nothing to stand on.
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 03-02-2009 at 12:49 PM.
Here we go again.
I don't even think he had a hand in the abiogenesis that you seem to be enamored of.
I think that the composition of chemicals and the way that elements interact leads to organic chemistry.
Why does carbon have X number of chemical bonding points? Why does water have the chemical properties it does? Set up the rules in such a way, and simply let the enormousness of the universe and the passage of immense amounts of time take care of the rest.
If you sat around and drew poker hands long enough the odds of you getting a royal flush are certain.
We have had this argument before, and even you acknowledge that, however reluctantly.
Ultimately, he is arguing/presenting a distortion and misinterpretation of what evolution says and the science supports.
'sokay. Phenom is actually fairly intelligent, so it could be worse. At least he isn't a 9-11 "truther".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
