Question for evolutionists

Mott the Hoople said:
Because I have fact and testable empirical observations that can and have been independently verified to back my assertions up and you don’t.
Click to expand...

No, you don't.

Observations are not 'testable'. They simply are. You still don't understand what the word 'fact' means. It is not a Universal Truth. Stop using it as one. Buzzword fallacy. Observations don't need to be verified. They simply are. It is not possible to 'verity' an observation due to the problems observation has with phenomenology (a branch of philosophy).

You have made observations. That necessarily means interpreting what you sensed. Other's interpretations are not going to be the same as yours.
 
Into the Night said:
You do bring up a significant problem with the Theory of Abiogenesis. Assuming it to be True for a moment, let's look at what is required for it to succeed:

* It must produce, out of nonbiological materials, biological materials. This must be by random, naturally occurring events.
Click to expand...
Organic molecules occur quite often. Molecules are not random. They follow very specific rules.

* The new cell must survive. This is in a world where no cell has survived before. This means that the world around the cell must also, by random naturally occurring events, become hospitable enough to support the new cell.
Click to expand...
This is a false assumption. You assume that a cell has to exist before life exists. No such requirement has to happen. Are viruses alive? They reproduce but they are not cells.
* The same thing must happen at least twice. The cell must have something to eat in order to reproduce. The result will be two cells. Now there is nothing to eat but each other. Therefore, independent abiogenesis events must happen much more than twice. Photosynthesis can't be used because that is a complex structure requiring many cells.
Click to expand...
Cells don't require something to eat to reproduce. Like all chemical reactions they require energy. But you have assumed that reproduction can only occur when a cell exists. That is circular reasoning. You have used your conclusion to form your assumption.
* The cell must be able to mutate (copy itself improperly). The fuzzy copy must be able to survive as well. Any further deviation means the daughter cell is destroyed. This ability to mutate must be inheritable or the Theory of Evolution cannot take place.
Click to expand...
I am unsure what you are arguing here. We have tons of evidence of cells mutating and then passing the mutations on to other generations.

There are a LOT of random events here, that must line up in perfect sequence or there is no life or evolution possible. The odds are so high it would be like winning on every blackjack table in Las Vegas sufficient to break the bank combined.
Click to expand...
First of all your statement of odds makes no sense. Second you have presented no math. Random events occur all the time. You are again making false assumptions in that you are assuming that evolution is creating a desired outcome. It does no such thing. Evolution simply takes whatever random event occurs and tests it against the current environment to see if it gives a distinct advantage or disadvantage. The outcome is not the best possible outcome but the best of the limited available choices.

In my opinion, the Theory of Abiogenesis has a lot of problems.
Click to expand...
The biggest problem being you don't understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. They are 2 separate things.

There is a further argument, regarding the research of possible Abiogenesis. Say we actually DO manage to synthesize a functioning cell in a laboratory from nonbiological materials. Is this evidence of Abiogenesis, or Creation? The cell WAS created by us, after all.
Click to expand...
Circular reasoning yet again. You simply assume that if someone gathers the right components and then something happens to the components they they are performing a creation. That is nonsense.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Because I have fact and testable empirical observations that can and have been independently verified to back my assertions up and you don’t.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry.....did you think an atheist's opinion is the new scientific method if another atheist agrees with him.......you observe a whale's fin and think its empirical proof it evolved from a lizard.......instead its empirical proof that God had a good idea........
 
Into the Night said:
He had to throw in some fancy looking words to make it 'sound' scientific.
Click to expand...

when he says "homologies" he simply means that he believes the bone in a whale's fin proves that a whale evolved from a lizard instead of it being proof that God wanted a whale to have a fin with structural support...........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I'm sorry.....did you think an atheist's opinion is the new scientific method if another atheist agrees with him.......you observe a whale's fin and think its empirical proof it evolved from a lizard.......instead its empirical proof that God had a good idea........
Click to expand...


Whales are mammals not reptiles.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so you acknowledge atheism is a religion......
Click to expand...

That would be ignorant.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well of course atheism is ignorant......



its an affirmative statement there is no god......I have no idea if you believe or not.......
Click to expand...


come on.. you can read.


Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
 
a-, an- - Word Information
wordinfo.info/unit/2838/ip:1

a-, an-. (Greek: prefix; no, absence of, without, lack of; not) These prefixes are normally used with elements of Greek origin, a- is used before consonants and an- is used before vowels. It affects the meanings of hundreds of words.



http://wordinfo.info/unit/2838/ip:1
 
StoneByStone said:
Atheism isn't an ideology. It's the lack of one single belief. The fact that you don't know that is scary and shows how bad the education system is.
Click to expand...


Maybe the problem is rote learning???


Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
 
kudzu said:
come on.. you can read.


Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god
Click to expand...

yes I can......and now I have read twice that you call yourself an atheist and you have no idea what the word even means........it has only been in the last decade that atheists have tried to redefine themselves........I think, because of embarrassment and loneliness.......atheists are not agnostics......they are the antithesis of agnostics........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top