Evolution Demonstrated In A Laboratory

[Jimmy Higgins]

You've got a holy book that only goes back a couple thousand years, and hasn't seen any updates.

Waitaminit! No updates? Why are there a shitload of versions then? Queen James alone added and subtracted whole swaths.

Ah good...
... to both your responses.
The religious are up-to-date, quite up there with the non-religious, which in fact means they're also in the scientific community! How's about that? The only thing perhaps, is that atheists need to update their arguments.

I don't have an argument. I have a fossil record. One that you are denying exists.

No not denying anything accept , the fossil records has had its issues.

So has the concept of physics. Saying general relativity is bogus because Newton thought time was a constant has no viable backing. Much like saying "the fossil record has had issues" is really meaningless. What part of the evolutionary record in the fossil record today do you have trouble with? Sure, our understanding on dinosaurs has developed over the years and decades, but it isn't like the development of microscopic life to larger life and the evolution of plant life etc... is going to have a eureka moment where the scientists realize it just all looked like it was related, but it was completely random.

So any specifics?

 

[steve_bank]

Is Learner going to answer my question on abiogenesis?

What was the question again?
I asked you if you could consider hypothetically (or philosophically as you mentioned, discussing in that vein) just pondering on the thought... that if a contained field of energy/could become 'consciously aware of its existence' given that there are no limits of time for having its own 'cosmic' evolving processes, nothing to do with the Biblical God. (I gave it a curious thought some years s back...before I became a BA Christian) You responded anyway only about me having a belief

(I'll have to look back at your question my eye sight is not good with limited screen space on this phone.)

Oh come on Learner, you are bteer tha that. Scifi has explored the quetion of non corporal life form to death.

Because organic life consists of inanimate elements, you say they are they same things as rocks? You can make that categorisation of course if that is the focus point you're aiming for. But people notice and differentiate the from living things and dead things. Certainly not as you are technically defining them by elements in the periodic table.

As you do not understd what energy and fields are and mean it is a pointless discussion.

Yeah but are you saying in terms that not everything is made of energy at all, matter is not energy, not even planets, plants and people?

Question:

Lightning strikes a forest and a chemical chain reaction starts, called fire. A self sustaining chemical reaction until fuel is exhausted.

Lightning strikes the early ocean and a checal reaction starts. A self sustaing self replcating chemecal process. Note that exremts usng simulated lightning have produced amino acids.

Is abiogenesis based on known science possible or not?

Abiogenesis... dead matter coming to life well yes of course.

Genesis 3:19 "From dust you came and dust you go. For from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

A water molecule is a water molecule that reacts as modeled by physics and chemistry. Same with each atom and molcule in your body. All yiur thoughts, feelings, amd emptions are the result of chemical reactionss and processes in your brain. Damage a part of your brin and speech is affected, or memory, or emotions, or self control.

Yes there are Christians in science and engineering as well. Some are as 'Mad as Moses'
when it comes to religion and the bible. Christian engineers I worked with compartmentalized religion and science.

Galileo and Newton were both believers, but so what? It does not make creationism true and invalidate TOE.

Even if TOE was invalidated it does not prove creationism.

Christians know science, so what? It comes down to TOE and overhearing preponderance of the evidence versus a few lines in an ancient text of uknown origins and authorship.

 

[Elixir]

Even if TOE was invalidated it does not prove creationism.

Uh, I don’t think poor Learner is hoping to slay the evolution dragon any more. He’s kinda boxed himself in, and now can only assault evolution with illogical demands like “make abiogenesis happen in a flask or my daddy ain’t no monkey!”

 

[steve_bank]

Yea, Learner is runng out of steam.

 

[Learner]

Even if TOE was invalidated it does not prove creationism.

Uh, I don’t think poor Learner is hoping to slay the evolution dragon any more. He’s kinda boxed himself in, and now can only assault evolution with illogical demands like “make abiogenesis happen in a flask or my daddy ain’t no monkey!”

Well, what you've quoted from Steves post wouldn't suggest the claim "no god was necessary". And besides I have no problem with the statement. I suppose It's still early days still, either way, so to speak.

 

[Learner]

Yea, Learner is runng out of steam.

I think I've responded to quite a number of posts. Don't you think so? Do note I am one person.. a busy person at that, these days.

 

[Elixir]

I’m always pleased to hear that a religious person is busy. You know what they say about de debbil’s playground.
Hopefully you’re getting stuff done.

 

[steve_bank]

Yea, Learner is runng out of steam.

I think I've responded to quite a number of posts. Don't you think so? Do note I am one person.. a busy person at that, these days.

A lot of wodrs, that takes physical effort to tyype.

But you have made no case fr creationism. You have not disproved TOE.

You have posted ill formed and misunderstood science as an argument

My guess is you are in the Christian euphoria Christians experience when doing battle in the name of god and Jesus. Being right s not an issue.

 

[Elixir]

Even if TOE was invalidated it does not prove creationism.

Uh, I don’t think poor Learner is hoping to slay the evolution dragon any more. He’s kinda boxed himself in, and now can only assault evolution with illogical demands like “make abiogenesis happen in a flask or my daddy ain’t no monkey!”

Well, what you've quoted from Steves post wouldn't suggest the claim "no god was necessary". And besides I have no problem with the statement. I suppose It's still early days still, either way, so to speak.

Thanks for assenting to the obvious.
It’s totally cute that you hold out hope for proof of Special Creation.

 

[hyzer]

Learner - honestly, why would you even want to try and counter science? Just accept it and claim that’s how your god intended it. I certainly wouldn’t mind if you did. You know, that’s how Christian scientists deal with this. To claim otherwise is to diminish your very god’s abilities.

 

[Elixir]

Learner - honestly, why would you even want to try and counter science? Just accept it and claim that’s how your god intended it. I certainly wouldn’t mind if you did. You know, that’s how Christian scientists deal with this. To claim otherwise is to diminish your very god’s abilities.

^ that!
I personally volunteer to take the hit from your God if he’s pissed that you believed human evolution, @Learner. Just tell him I said that. (He already knows but you still have to go through the motions, like prayer. Otherwise you’ll get the blame)

 

[Shadowy Man]

Learner - honestly, why would you even want to try and counter science? Just accept it and claim that’s how your god intended it. I certainly wouldn’t mind if you did. You know, that’s how Christian scientists deal with this. To claim otherwise is to diminish your very god’s abilities.

In fact, it’s downright brilliant to have figured out that starting with these fundamental physical and chemical laws would lead to life that would worship Him after a few billion years.

 

[Elixir]

Learner - honestly, why would you even want to try and counter science? Just accept it and claim that’s how your god intended it. I certainly wouldn’t mind if you did. You know, that’s how Christian scientists deal with this. To claim otherwise is to diminish your very god’s abilities.

In fact, it’s downright brilliant to have figured out that starting with these fundamental physical and chemical laws would lead to life that would worship Him after a few billion years.

And that’s so much easier than having to fuck around with ribs and snakes and fluddes on some little planet speck in an ordinary spiral galaxy.

God’s greatest “creation”, assuming a god, and IMHO, is evolution.

Guess what I’m saying to learner is my god’s better than your god.

 

[steve_bank]

Sigh....

I have said many times given an ifinite unverse with no begihiing and end there is no need for any god or creator. The universe has always existed and always will.

I base that concussion based on causality, conservation of mass, and conservation of energy for which there has been no experimental exceptions.

If you abandon causality then you can imagine aything like a god winking the universe into existence from nothing.

Of course origins of the universe are no more provable scientifically than a god hypothesis.

My intro thermodynamics text said the Laws Of Thermodynaics are not provable but that no exceptions have been observed.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Sigh....

I have said many times given an ifinite unverse with no begihiing and end there is no need for any god or creator. The universe has always existed and always will.

I base that concussion based on causality, conservation of mass, and conservation of energy for which there has been no experimental exceptions.

If you abandon causality then you can imagine aything like a god winking the universe into existence from nothing.

Of course origins of the universe are no more provable scientifically than a god hypothesis.

My intro thermodynamics text said the Laws Of Thermodynaics are not provable but that no exceptions have been observed.

Depends on how you define the word “prove”.

 

[Learner]

I’m always pleased to hear that a religious person is busy. You know what they say about de debbil’s playground.
Hopefully you’re getting stuff done.

Cheers for the understanding. I shouldn't judge a book by its cover from what may have seemed like someone debating with some grudging undertone, as it seemed in some of your posts. So pardon me for that - pardon me for the quick responses - I've just got too used to the convenience of the phone.

 

[Learner]

Learner - honestly, why would you even want to try and counter science? Just accept it and claim that’s how your god intended it. I certainly wouldn’t mind if you did. You know, that’s how Christian scientists deal with this. To claim otherwise is to diminish your very god’s abilities.

Hyzer, science isn't an opposition to God! I'm not going against science. It's the individuals I'm talking about, those who try to claim science counters the idea of God existing, which interestingly varies between individuals depending on their particular concept of God. It's been stated by some posters which l agree with - the sensible fact that some things are not possible to test.

 

[bilby]

the sensible fact that some things are not possible to test

It's also a sensible fact that you don't get to pick which facts those are.

 

[Learner]

the sensible fact that some things are not possible to test

It's also a sensible fact that you don't get to pick which facts those are.

I could have said that myself.

 

[hyzer]

Learner - honestly, why would you even want to try and counter science? Just accept it and claim that’s how your god intended it. I certainly wouldn’t mind if you did. You know, that’s how Christian scientists deal with this. To claim otherwise is to diminish your very god’s abilities.

Hyzer, science isn't an opposition to God! I'm not going against science. It's the individuals I'm talking about, those who try to claim science counters the idea of God existing, which interestingly varies between individuals depending on their particular concept of God. It's been stated by some posters which l agree with - the sensible fact that some things are not possible to test.

Science by definition and in practice studies the natural world. Any definition and attributes of a god that are stated by the god proponents as being supernatural are of no concern of scientists and not subject to study. Any god that is proposed that interacts with the natural world, then those actions can be investigated. Thus far the 'god-participating-directly' claims have not passed any test or investigation.