A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

originally posted by: craterman
So, what does your mate look like? Have you ever looked at someone with a genetic defect and said 'oh yeah' ? What about your friends, family?? I don't need any 101 classes to know that truth and neither do you. It is just a simple fact.

a reply to: Phantom423

Sorry, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Molecular biology and biology in general are scientific disciplines. Not sure what that has to do with genetic defects as you describe them.

For one specie to change into another, there is going to have to be some noticeable change at some point. Some may think well it just happens so slowly no one ever notices. And that is something then surly no one has ever witnessed or even claim to have witnessed. I'd say that puts God a head of the evolution argument. Many have claimed to witnessed God.

a reply to: Phantom423

originally posted by: craterman
For one specie to change into another, there is going to have to be some noticeable change at some point. Some may think well it just happens so slowly no one ever notices. And that is something then surly no one has ever witnessed or even claim to have witnessed. I'd say that puts God a head of the evolution argument. Many have claimed to witnessed God.

a reply to: Phantom423

That simply isn't true. Evolution has been observed in laboratory experiments. The fossil record is replete with examples of evolutionary change. No one objects to your belief in God. But science is a discipline of discovery, observation and evidence. And the evidence for evolutionary change is recorded in hundreds of research articles.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: edmc^2

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

How many decimal places has Pi been worked out to by a person? How many decimal places exist between 1.1 and 1.2? Mathematically, there are an infinite number of decimal places between those 2 numbers, Pi is the same, it can be worked out seemingly forever.

Your question is a paradox because there is no 'something' to begin with, you are, at a most fundamental level, referring to 'something' in order for you to conceptualize it's very existence....as to whether this 'something' occurred in order for 'something' to exist. Likewise with 'cause' - 'cause' is 'something'.

This hasnt been adressed i believe...
Why not?

So infiniti...

Some process made the universe, someday some process
will end it... Rince and repeat...

I must have missed it. When/ where has one specie been observed changing into another? It is true, with a God that wishes to remain hidden, all you are left with is faith. Except for some rare instances when He reveals Himself, then again, if it doesn't happen to you, then it's faith again. I am not a scientist, but I am not ignorant about science either. And I certainly have imagined an existence without a God. And IMO, that is about as hard to get your head around than the with the existence of a God. Infinity alone is a difficult concept. But the physical harshness of this universe, at least for me, negates any possibility that only chance did all this.

a reply to: Phantom423

Regards species, there is constant genetic change, to the tune of 40+ mutations in each newborn for some species(human example). There are different species that can interbreed and give sterile offspring, and different species that can interbreed and give fertile hybrids.

IF the population of a particular species becomes divided in two or more subpopulations and they remain divided for long enough, the inevitable constant accumulation of changes will make for two or more species.

These changes will be shared within the separated group as they interbreed, but since they are separated the other group will accumulate different changes, and eventually the differences will be too big.

originally posted by: craterman
I must have missed it. When/ where has one specie been observed changing into another? It is true, with a God that wishes to remain hidden, all you are left with is faith. Except for some rare instances when He reveals Himself, then again, if it doesn't happen to you, then it's faith again. I am not a scientist, but I am not ignorant about science either. And I certainly have imagined an existence without a God. And IMO, that is about as hard to get your head around than the with the existence of a God. Infinity alone is a difficult concept. But the physical harshness of this universe, at least for me, negates any possibility that only chance did all this.

a reply to: Phantom423

Well then as long as you know something about science, there are over 500 journals and thousands of articles on evolutionary change.



All the answers are in there if you want to research your questions.

But the physical harshness of this universe, at least for me, negates any possibility that only chance did all this.

The physical harshness of the universe should tell you the opposite - if it was a God, I assume you would think the God was a good God and didn't want to harm anyone or anything. But on the contrary, we have a very inhospitable universe where humans can barely get off the planet without extraordinary risk. I would rethink that if I were you.

These answers are not there. I assure you.

a reply to: Phantom423

originally posted by: craterman
These answers are not there. I assure you.

a reply to: Phantom423

Really? And what makes you so sure? Have you read through these journals? Have you done any research? That's a silly statement. You don't know what's in those journals if you have never read any of them.

originally posted by: craterman
These answers are not there. I assure you.

a reply to: Phantom423

What a lovely display of willful ignorance it is to dismiss information without having read a single word. You have no interest in expanding your knowledge. Instead you simply seek to push your narrow views. Too bad.

I’ve a question oh great knowledgable ones. How does intelligence, and indeed life itself evolve out of inanimate matter?

Further why would it? What’s the point?

originally posted by: surfer_soul


I’ve a question oh great knowledgable ones. How does intelligence, and indeed life itself evolve out of inanimate matter?

Further why would it? What’s the point?

No one ever said that it did. What's your point?

I'll say two things about this topic.

1) I can't believe an OP like this, essentially a 'When did you stop beating your wife', is still going on. You were baited, then switched.

2) As Newcomb's paradox says you can't know certain things about your paradigm while you're within that paradigm. IOW, we can never know about the true beginnings of our system being an inhabitant of that system. If we were given the answers we would not know what they meant. As in the concept of using a long enough lever to move the universe, you have to have a 'place to stand' and there is no "PTS" inside the Universe.

So while I would urge people to keep thinking in a non-dogmatic way about their paradigm, there are other, better questions to probe, but 'how much you should worship an insubstantial Being' is not one of them. It's a logic-free sinkhole with no worthwhile benefit.

originally posted by: Maverick7
I'll say two things about this topic.

1) I can't believe an OP like this, essentially a 'When did you stop beating your wife', is still going on. You were baited, then switched.

2) As Newcomb's paradox says you can't know certain things about your paradigm while you're within that paradigm. IOW, we can never know about the true beginnings of our system being an inhabitant of that system. If we were given the answers we would not know what they meant. As in the concept of using a long enough lever to move the universe, you have to have a 'place to stand' and there is no "PTS" inside the Universe.

So while I would urge people to keep thinking in a non-dogmatic way about their paradigm, there are other, better questions to probe, but 'how much you should worship an insubstantial Being' is not one of them. It's a logic-free sinkhole with no worthwhile benefit.

^ This.

originally posted by: surfer_soul


I’ve a question oh great knowledgable ones. How does intelligence, and indeed life itself evolve out of inanimate matter?

Further why would it? What’s the point?

Posted a link about that a couple pages back. But as usual, direct answers are ignored in favor of attacking straw men and one upping each other.

originally posted by: surfer_soul


I’ve a question oh great knowledgable ones. How does intelligence, and indeed life itself evolve out of inanimate matter?

Further why would it? What’s the point?

Everything is made from inanimate matter.

a reply to: Phantom423

Woodcarver just said it did...

What’s my point? I want to understand the origin of life. It’s seems if nothing else our DNA seems think there’s some point to all this. Hence the general struggle for survival.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: surfer_soul


I’ve a question oh great knowledgable ones. How does intelligence, and indeed life itself evolve out of inanimate matter?

Further why would it? What’s the point?

Posted a link about that a couple pages back. But as usual, direct answers are ignored in favor of attacking straw men and one upping each other.

I didn’t see it, I’ve looked and still can’t find your link either. Is it so hard to re-post it again? I’m not trying to one up anyone BTW just looking for answers to what must be the greatest mystery of them all.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Phantom423

Woodcarver just said it did...

What’s my point? I want to understand the origin of life. It’s seems if nothing else our DNA seems think there’s some point to all this. Hence the general struggle for survival.

Evolution is not about the origin of life. Evolution is about change. Origin of life is abiogenesis. We don't know if life started from inorganic/organic molecules. Scientists have recreated components of life in the lab:

www.nasa.gov...

Craig Venter is credited with producing synthetic life in the lab:

In May 2010, a team of scientists led by Venter became the first to successfully create what was described as "synthetic life".[36][37] This was done by synthesizing a very long DNA molecule containing an entire bacterium genome, and introducing this into another cell, analogous to the accomplishment of Eckard Wimmer's group, who synthesized and ligated an RNA virus genome and "booted" it in cell lysate.[38] The single-celled organism contains four "watermarks"[39] written into its DNA to identify it as synthetic and to help trace its descendants. The watermarks include Code table for entire alphabet with punctuations Names of 46 contributing scientists Three quotations The secret email address for the cell.[40] On March 25, 2016 Venter reported the creation of Syn 3.0, a synthetic genome having the fewest genes of any freely living organism (473 genes). Their aim was to strip away all nonessential genes, leaving only the minimal set necessary to support life. This stripped-down, fast reproducing cell is expected to be a valuable tool for researchers in the field.[41]

en.wikipedia.org...

Creating life from the bottom up to reproduce any form of life on this planet has not been done. The probability is that life formed from organic molecules that self assembled and at some point in time, acquired the ability to reproduce. The definition of life is the ability to reproduce. But no one can say with absolute certainty how life arose on this planet.

It's important to point out what we know definitively and what is still an open question. People naturally become confused on this subject.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Phantom423

Woodcarver just said it did...

What’s my point? I want to understand the origin of life. It’s seems if nothing else our DNA seems think there’s some point to all this. Hence the general struggle for survival.

Evolution is not about the origin of life. Evolution is about change. Origin of life is abiogenesis. We don't know if life started from inorganic/organic molecules. Scientists have recreated components of life in the lab:

www.nasa.gov...

Craig Venter is credited with producing synthetic life in the lab:

In May 2010, a team of scientists led by Venter became the first to successfully create what was described as "synthetic life".[36][37] This was done by synthesizing a very long DNA molecule containing an entire bacterium genome, and introducing this into another cell, analogous to the accomplishment of Eckard Wimmer's group, who synthesized and ligated an RNA virus genome and "booted" it in cell lysate.[38] The single-celled organism contains four "watermarks"[39] written into its DNA to identify it as synthetic and to help trace its descendants. The watermarks include Code table for entire alphabet with punctuations Names of 46 contributing scientists Three quotations The secret email address for the cell.[40] On March 25, 2016 Venter reported the creation of Syn 3.0, a synthetic genome having the fewest genes of any freely living organism (473 genes). Their aim was to strip away all nonessential genes, leaving only the minimal set necessary to support life. This stripped-down, fast reproducing cell is expected to be a valuable tool for researchers in the field.[41]

en.wikipedia.org...

Creating life from the bottom up to reproduce any form of life on this planet has not been done. The probability is that life formed from organic molecules that self assembled and at some point in time, acquired the ability to reproduce. The definition of life is the ability to reproduce. But no one can say with absolute certainty how life arose on this planet.

It's important to point out what we know definitively and what is still an open question. People naturally become confused on this subject.

This might be helpful.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...