Evolution Demonstrated In A Laboratory

[Elixir]

I would hazard a guess and say eight people all carried them in one form or another.

I’d hazard two guesses;

1) I would guess that if the ark story was true, you would necessarily be correct about all of the 8 being infected with all the above or their precursors, and

2) there is a better chance that there was a talking mule than a global fludde ridden out in a wooden boat carrying every terrestrial organism on the planet.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, evolution can be demonstrated. Checkmate creationists,

Perhaps what has demonstrated is variation within a kind or species.
Call me when a reptile gives birth to a bird.

It is 2023, and you are making with that ignorant canard?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

, there aren't any known occurrences happening now. No evidence that it happens more than once.

Creo Canard # 1,846

* we don’t know that no abiogenesis is happening now

Well yes, sure, I don't have an issue with your statement.
I'm saying we haven't seen any indication for the regular reoccurrence.

* if an abiogenesis event like what gave rise to current diversity happened now, we would never know; at the time when the first prokayotic life appeared on earth, the atmosphere was anoxic. In the presence of oxygen, such organisms could not survive.

If the abiogenesis event happened now as it did then, It wouldn't be problematic if the first prokaryotic life is never known The importance would be, that noticeably, the abiogenesis event has happened again.

1) Are you going to argue that water can't boil because a pot of water on a counter is never coming to a boil?

2) Or do you simply think that events that only occur within your life time or within periods of time you find convenient are naturally occurring? Water can be a gas, solid, and liquid all at the same time, given the right conditions.

3) Or is it simply possible that it does happen within certain periods of time, however, it is so grossly unadapted, it has no shot in heck of competing with the life that already exists?

 

[bilby]

Which of the eight people on the Ark were responsible for carrying the viruses that can only survive in humans?

You know, things like typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, syphillis...

I would hazard a guess and say eight people all carried them in one form or another.
And lest we forget these viruses evolved over time.

Lest we forget, most of the people who are dim enough to think that the story of Noah's Ark is literally true, and that the events described in the story bear some resemblance to something that could possibly have actually happened, do not believe that evolution is a thing.

 

[James Brown]

Call me when someone can carry smallpox, typhus and polio and live long enough to bear children.

 

[LoAmmo]

Yes, evolution can be demonstrated. Checkmate creationists,

Perhaps what has demonstrated is variation within a kind or species.
Call me when a reptile gives birth to a bird.

Call us when you understand the first fucking thing about Evolution.

And I mean, the literal, page 1, chapter 1 topic in Evolution 101.

 

[Learner]

, there aren't any known occurrences happening now. No evidence that it happens more than once.

Creo Canard # 1,846

* we don’t know that no abiogenesis is happening now

Well yes, sure, I don't have an issue with your statement.
I'm saying we haven't seen any indication for the regular reoccurrence.

* if an abiogenesis event like what gave rise to current diversity happened now, we would never know; at the time when the first prokayotic life appeared on earth, the atmosphere was anoxic. In the presence of oxygen, such organisms could not survive.

If the abiogenesis event happened now as it did then, It wouldn't be problematic if the first prokaryotic life is never known The importance would be, that noticeably, the abiogenesis event has happened again.

1) Are you going to argue that water can't boil because a pot of water on a counter is never coming to a boil?

I'm intrigued with your question, which as an analogous illustration ... precisely parallels the context of questions that is normally brought up in 'abiogenesis arguments' in the same way (perhaps a tad more than you intended). The question you ask. I could easily take to be more analogous to 'evolution', than abiogenesis. Your question seems to have begat another:

With the illustration you provided above: The pot of water on the counter, if it does happen to boil... would the water have boiled by itself?

The very start of the boiling process would be the abiogenesis in your illustration.

2) Or do you simply think that events that only occur within your life time or within periods of time you find convenient are naturally occurring? Water can be a gas, solid, and liquid all at the same time, given the right conditions.

Never say never. But keep having theoretical ideas.

3) Or is it simply possible that it does happen within certain periods of time, however, it is so grossly unadapted, it has no shot in heck of competing with the life that already exists?

So far we see only life producing life, for lack of a better analogy, it's like 'keeping the flame alight..' candles lighting new candles in succession before they burn out.

 

[Learner]

Does Learner think humans ran around with dinosaurs?

Prob’ly. Creos think lots of crazy things. But amazingly, they are able to put it all aside when matters of food, shelter and clothing arise. Lucky for them, fantasies of Jesus riding tyrannosaurs or superbeings poofing humans into existence don’t impact those issues.

Displaying inner feelings?

 

[Learner]

Post deleted ( I'll try again later)

 

[steve_bank]

We are all shy men here, we do ont share our feelings.

As to being ingrugued, that is what we are here for, to keep you entertained.

As to boiling water, it depends on where a pot of water is and the pressure.

The sun does not need an agent to form and start nuclear fusion, it is all a natural process.

Lightning strikes a dry forest and a fire starts.

Simple observation tells us that nothing precludes abiogenesis. There is nothing in the Laws Of Thermodynamics that says abiogenesis can not occur,.

Your sneaky proof of god fails. An infinite universe with no start and end dies ot a cause.

 

[Elixir]

Your sneaky proof of god fails.

Creos have to know that their arguments are not scientifically sound. Apparently they think it’s more important to lead sinners to (their) god than to be “totally accurate about science stuff”. The fact that “sciencey atheist types” are put off by shit that’s not true, seems to escape them, which severely hampers any hope of validation, let alone converting anyone.

 

[Learner]

We are all shy men here, we do ont share our feelings.

As to being ingrugued, that is what we are here for, to keep you entertained.

People can get upset and peed off. I've seen it on the forum, but then I think you're joking just to 'entertain me."

As to boiling water, it depends on where a pot of water is and the pressure.

I suppose with the introduction of the pot that is miraculously shaped to contain and boil water, is a better analogy than water boiling in a lake.

The sun does not need an agent to form and start nuclear fusion, it is all a natural process.

Lightning strikes a dry forest and a fire starts.

Christians born in these modern times think modern things too who also have access to the same information as anyone else.. and a lot of peeps see nature as being 'mechanically on automation. System repeating processes being quite predictable that we make reference charts and tables, expecting repeatable observations.

Simple observation tells us that nothing precludes abiogenesis. There is nothing in the Laws Of Thermodynamics that says abiogenesis can not occur,.

That is as much information one can get in the above as one guessing how many life existences may have happened elsewhere before the earth had spawn hers.

Your sneaky proof of god fails. An infinite universe with no start and end dies ot a cause.

There's a lot I would like to discuss - I will when there is the time. Anyway with regards to eternity, .do you think 'hypothetically' plausible to consider a containment field of energy could eventually become consciously aware, with lots and lots of time what have you - the contained :fields of energy' goes through its own cosmic evolution process? I think I've been entertained enough it's bed time.

 

[steve_bank]

If yu believe n bible god then you have several choices.

1. God always was and always will be.
2. God winked into existence without causation and can wink back out to nothing.
3. God has a finite existence and a causal beginning.

You have no choice but to believe god is infinite in time and power.

Star formation yo me is part of an infinite number of sequences. Abiogenesis being one sequnce in an infinite chain of sequences.

God in some mythologies and beliefs is metaphor for the infinite universe.

So far you have not presented anythng that refutes or invalidates TOE. You seem t be making a version of the old prime mover argument. We see a chain of causal events and comclude there must have been a first cause, for Christians a story in an old text of unkbi authorship.

What caused the lightning to strike that caused a fire? We go back through an infinite regression of events. Back to the formation of sun and planets...ad infinitum.

Same with your body. Liv or dead material is irrelevant, an infinite chain of regression

Whether you choose to publicly acknowledge it, you probably understand there is no need for a god to explen our ecosystem.

People can get upset and peed off. I've seen it on the forum, but then I think you're joking just to 'entertain me."

I could probably fund a biblical metaphor to explain it.

People get pissed off? I hadn't really noticed. I am usually too busy laughing.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Early cosmologies start with a primal sea or the void, primal chaos. For cexample read the opening verses of Hesiod's theogony. Creator Gods come later. For example the fragments of Xenophanes. One of the earliest perfect being monotheist theists. All are guesses. The great cosmic chaos cosmologies seem to be the best guesses in light of modern empirical cosmology.

 

[bilby]

Early cosmologies start with a primal sea or the void, primal chaos

Yeah, for millennia, people stood on the shore of the ocean, and said "Woah! that water just goes on forever!".

It's a small step from there to "That's all there was, before there was somewhere to live".

And of course, water is blue, and the sky is blue, and sometimes water falls out of the sky, so it's fairly obvious that water goes on forever up above the sky too.

So a creator's first job is to separate the waters, to make a bubble of air, and to provide some dry land.

But all of this depends entirely upon the idea that the ocean is infinite in extent.

Which to anyone prior to the Early Middle Ages, was basically obvious. The Mediterranean Bronze and Iron Age seafarers were no slouches. They could sail out of sight of land, and navigate by the stars, and yet, even to them, the Atlantic went on indefinitely. It probably had an edge somewhere, so that the celestial bodies had somewhere to go when they dropped below the horizon. But that edge would, obviously and necessarily, be a waterfall of epic scale.

 

[steve_bank]

I read that te ancient Hebrew language makes translation into English difficult. There are terms with no equivalent in English. A lot of context as to meaning past, present, ad future.

Not much different than trying to translate English writings today into a future language 3000 years from now tryng to derive a literal meaning of what somebody says or writes.

The Genesis creation story can be interpreted to mean something like 'out of chaos god broght order'.

The creationist belief based on the English translations are based in somebody's imagination ,many centuries ago. Call it lartistic literary license.

 

[bilby]

I read that te ancient Hebrew language makes translation into English difficult. There are terms with no equivalent in English. A lot of context as to meaning past, present, ad future.

Whoever would have thought that there could be foreign languages that aren't direct encodings of English.

This strange and inexplicable characteristic, of having words with no English equivalent, and context that is excluded from the text (being assumed to be understood by all parties without being explicitly stated), makes a particularly difficult task of translating text to English from Ancient Hebrew, and from some other languages (ancient and modern) that share this trait, such as:
every
single
last
motherfucking
one
of
them.

 

[Learner]

If yu believe n bible god then you have several choices.

1. God always was and always will be.
2. God winked into existence without causation and can wink back out to nothing.
3. God has a finite existence and a causal beginning.

You have no choice but to believe god is infinite in time and power.

I didn't ask what you thought about handsome me.

Star formation yo me is part of an infinite number of sequences. Abiogenesis being one sequnce in an infinite chain of sequences.

Yes and where do I refute this?

God in some mythologies and beliefs is metaphor for the infinite universe.

So far you have not presented anythng that refutes or invalidates TOE. You seem t be making a version of the old prime mover argument. We see a chain of causal events and comclude there must have been a first cause, for Christians a story in an old text of unkbi authorship.

So far it's your opinion.

What caused the lightning to strike that caused a fire? We go back through an infinite regression of events. Back to the formation of sun and planets...ad infinitum. Same with your body. Liv or dead material is irrelevant, an infinite chain of regression

Ok, sure Steve, you describe here that these endless ad infinitum cycle of sequences was always there.

Whether you choose to publicly acknowledge it, you probably understand there is no need for a god to explen our ecosystem.

And so, by not answering my initial questions, it's about again me. (Can't send pics with autograph unfortunately)

People can get upset and peed off. I've seen it on the forum, but then I think you're joking just to 'entertain me."

I could probably fund a biblical metaphor to explain it.

People get pissed off? I hadn't really noticed. I am usually too busy laughing.

That's the spirit

 

[steve_bank]

Learner

Lightning strikes a forest starting a chemical reaction we call fire, It is self sustaining chain reaction until fuel is exhausted.

Abiogenesis would be a self sustaing chemical reaction starting with a source of energy. Simulated lightning strikes into water thought to be the same content as early oceans creates amino acids, building blocks.

If you accept lightning can start a chemical reaction then logically you can not dismiss abiogenesis as impossible, just because it conflicts with a belief in a few ancient lines of text.

Science follows the evidence, not supernatural claims. If you reject the abiogenesis hypothesis then you reject the demonstrated efficacy of science, on which your modern life depends.

You misunderstood. While around people I can and do respect beliefs even when I don't get it bck from Christians. I think it is the right thing to do.

That being said this pseudo scientific Christian attempts to refute cosmology and evolution are just plain silliness, childish. Laughable, and I mean literally. Roll on the floor laughing.

 

[Elixir]

If you accept lightning can start a chemical reaction then logically you can not dismiss abiogenesis as impossible, just because it conflicts with a belief in a few ancient lines of text.

Yeah - logically. But practically, dismissing abiogenesis as a possibility is a requirement for anyone wanting to accept superstitious magic creation stories.
I think you know what you’re dealing with here.