The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

a reply to: edmc^2

If it's logical, you should be able to provide a "proof" of that logic.

Your "To the contrary..." though, is hilarious... it wasn't very contrary. You basically said the same thing blueman12 said, just in more words, and with some stabs at evolution to boot!

You start with a position (creation... incidentally no facts), draw a conclusion first (hahahahaha)... then you "... seek to find evidence..." that fits your preconceived notions.

Unfortunately the requirement for facts muddied it.

That's because your methodology is not science.

a reply to: edmc^2

Funny how creationists always flip the evolution debate to origins.

The evidence for abiogenesis is currently being searched for, and at the moment, where we are up to is seeing organic matter self-assemble from inorganic matter. We have seen many amino acids (which are organic molecules), including ALL the amino acids present in currently known life (the building blocks of life), self-configure from inorganic matter.

We have also seen those amino acids self-configure into many different complex structures. We are yet to see a complex structure that we recognise as life self-configure from these experiments.

So the only honest answer is "THE MECHANISM FOR THE GENESIS OF LIFE IS STILL UNKNOWN". Not god did it, unless you can point to an experiment which is suggesting god?

Without a methodology, assuming god did it is dishonest.

A hypothetical question for the creationists.

If abiogenesis were proven to happen, would that confirm evolution for you? Or would you still need more evidence?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: edmc^2

Proponents of creation start with a pre-concieved awnser and try to prove it. That's not how science should work.

To the contrary, unlike evolution, proponents of Creation start with what's logical. In other words, since it's illogical and highly unscientific (if I may add) to say that absolute nothing started the material universe and life (for that matter), then the obvious and only logical conclusion is, "something" or "someone" eternal, always existing, started it all.

From that starting point, we seek to find the evidence. And the evidence shows - both by logic and science - that life can't come from "nothing" or from non-life but from existing life.

It's simple as that.

Unfortunately, evolution muddied it.

And where is that evidence that "life can't come from nothing"? Can you give a few citations? Your logic is faulty and factually based.

don't forget non-life, no life, not living things, non-living, inanimate materials, dead things - am I forgetting anything? Oh, dead meat.

There's no scientific way to get life from the things I listed above - unless you are God! Or possesses life.

No laboratory in the world from the beginning of time has produced life from the things I listed above, unless...

It's mathematically and scientifically impossible to get life from the things I listed above unless you...

No scientist had ever created life from the things I listed above unless of course, one is ...

Life begets life is a fact.

death (non-living) - is a dead end is a fact.

Now if you still don't get it, sorry.

No one ever said they did or could create life out of your list of material objects. This is something that's made up by you folks because you don't have a clue how biology works.

What you're forgetting is that self assembled molecules can form reproducing molecules. Reproduction is essentially the definition of life. This has been demonstrated many times. No third party is required. Nucleic acids can self assemble into amino acids - DNA to mRNA to amino acids to peptides to proteins. To date, no one has observed a third party orchestrating this sequence of events. It is a natural process.

You're another one who hasn't a clue how science works much less the complexity of biological chemistry. Get a few good books or enroll in an online course. It's dreadful how little understanding you folks have about the biology of life on this planet. You can't think your way out of a paper bag.

a reply to: Phantom423

You can’t even answer his question, yet you say he is unable to think, you thought you gave an answer to his question but missed the mark altogether. Was your answer based in desperation or are you seriously believing you have answered him?
Aside from that the answer you did provided is evidence for intelligent design for the processes you used as examples follow a strict protocol and a predisposed ability inherent to them for such actions to transpire...
Furthermore and most importantly none of those things are nothing... they are things in existence which were therefore themselves created...
Give an example of one thing in existence that has never been created, the answer is nothing and nothing can only beget nothing....
You cant answer his question honestly because you can’t even grasp the concept of the absence of absolutely anything or in other words nothing...

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

So what you're saying is that since creationism was inadequate and has no facts, we observed the natural environment, recorded a bunch of data and as a result evolution has slowly developed over decades as an alternative to creationism?.....for those that just don't want to beleive in God.

Sounds about right.

Fixed that for you

Not really, all you did was address your own confirmation biases. Belief in a god or gods, or a lack there of, has nothing to do with being able to understand the science that supports the MES. There are numerous people working in the Biological and Earth sciences who are devoutly religious, like Dr. Francis Collins, who was CEO of the Human Genome Project. He also wrote ‘The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief is a bestselling book by Francis Collins in which he advocates theistic evolution’. Understanding basic biology and genetics isn’t some magical thing that suddenly occurs when you discount the existence of a special creator and insisting that people who understand the MES are atheists bound for hell is pure, unadulterated ignorance at its finest.

a reply to: edmc^2

Now please show me your evidence that life can be created from a lump of dead meat or a non-living thing. If you have one, you're now God.

Send your monthly tithe to some poor bastard that needs it. Gods are bull#.

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

Cloning animals from dead meat is possible and has been done.

Cattle, sheep, cat, deer, dog, horse, mule, ox, rabbit and rat.

Are you people just too ignorant or just can't accept the truth?

Cloning requires an intact DNA then cloned from a living source.

It involves cryonics to preserve the tissue and prevent it from falling apart.

here's a kid video for you:

Now please show me your evidence that life can be created from a lump of dead meat or a non-living thing. If you have one, you're now God.

By your interpretation, apparently there a many gods from the US to South Korea cloning pets from tissue extracted after the animals had expired. These gods just want your check to clear though. No tithes, no Sunday service... just gods making science that you claim can’t happen.

Want to clone your dead dog?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

You can’t even answer his question, yet you say he is unable to think, you thought you gave an answer to his question but missed the mark altogether. Was your answer based in desperation or are you seriously believing you have answered him?
Aside from that the answer you did provided is evidence for intelligent design for the processes you used as examples follow a strict protocol and a predisposed ability inherent to them for such actions to transpire...
Furthermore and most importantly none of those things are nothing... they are things in existence which were therefore themselves created...
Give an example of one thing in existence that has never been created, the answer is nothing and nothing can only beget nothing....
You cant answer his question honestly because you can’t even grasp the concept of the absence of absolutely anything or in other words nothing...

Please rephrase the question. Your English is incomprehensible.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

Cloning animals from dead meat is possible and has been done.

Cattle, sheep, cat, deer, dog, horse, mule, ox, rabbit and rat.

Are you people just too ignorant or just can't accept the truth?

Cloning requires an intact DNA then cloned from a living source.

It involves cryonics to preserve the tissue and prevent it from falling apart.

here's a kid video for you:

Now please show me your evidence that life can be created from a lump of dead meat or a non-living thing. If you have one, you're now God.

By your interpretation, apparently there a many gods from the US to South Korea cloning pets from tissue extracted after the animals had expired. These gods just want your check to clear though. No tithes, no Sunday service... just gods making science that you claim can’t happen.

Want to clone your dead dog?

You must be kidding me. Do you actually know how cloning is done? Apparently not even after posting how it's done. Your link only says they cloned a dog but doesn't say how they cloned it or where they put the tissue.

But for your edumacation - here's how's it's done:

The couple paid upwards of $100,000 to a Korean company to clone their Jack Russell terrier, Shannon, by implanting her DNA into a dog embryo. Now they have two cloned puppies that share Shannon’s DNA named Deena and Evita. Just like Shannon, Deena already has a dress named after her. Sorry, Evita …

... by implanting her DNA into a dog embryo

In other words, life to life.

Man, you really need to brush up on your science.

a reply to: edmc^2


I’m well aware of how it’s done. In the instance I cited, they used dead tissue from a deceased animal no matter how you argue around it. It discusses quite clearly how Barbara Streisand had the dog cloned from tissue removed after it expired. You claimed that if someone could take cells a dead dog and clone it then they would be a god. Well, there’s at least one god in Texas and a couple in S. Korea.

a reply to: edmc^2

.. by implanting her DNA into a dog embryo In other words, life to life.

You are WRONG. DNA is not "alive". It is a complex molecular structure, but it is not alive because it is not an organism. More evidence that you know zip about biological chemistry.

This is an excerpt from a paper which describes the misconceptions that students have about DNA.

Abstract

We are involved in a project to incorporate innovative assessments within a reform-based large-lecture biochemistry course for nonmajors. We not only assessed misconceptions but purposefully changed instruction throughout the semester to confront student ideas.

Our research questions targeted student conceptions of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) along with understanding in what ways classroom discussions/activities influence student conceptions. Data sources included pre-/post-assessments, semi-structured interviews, and student work on exams/assessments.

We found that students held misconceptions about the chemical nature of DNA, with 63 % of students claiming that DNA is alive prior to instruction. The chemical nature of DNA is an important fundamental concept in science fields. We confronted this misconception throughout the semester collecting data from several instructional interventions. Case studies of individual students revealed how various instructional strategies/assessments allowed students to construct and demonstrate the scientifically accepted understanding of the chemical nature of DNA. However, the post-assessment exposed that 40 % of students still held misconceptions about DNA, indicating the persistent nature of this misconception. Implications for teaching and learning are discussed.

link.springer.com...

a reply to: edmc^2

You must be kidding me. Do you actually know how cloning is done? Apparently not even after posting how it's done. Your link only says they cloned a dog but doesn't say how they cloned it or where they put the tissue.

In fact, YOU are the one who doesn't understand cloning. Look it up (if you dare).

a reply to: edmc^2

And you're another one who disappears into the ether and never responds to posts that cite the scientific evidence. The post by Grimpachi is an example - this was an excellent post with a YouTube that described a very interesting experiment which refutes your position. Did you respond? Hell no - why should you? You might learn something!

Perhaps you should watch that video again: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Self assembly is a fundamental principle which generates structural organization on scales from atomic nuclei to solar systems and galaxies. Covalent, non-covalent, weak and strong bonds would not exist if self assembly was not the principle mechanism for molecular organization.

Yes, I perceive this as the perpetuation of laws enacted by God to uphold his creation. All laws are made by intelligent beings. until we have evidence that laws can be made by something that is not an intelligent being, then an intelligent Creator is the most logical conclusion regarding the laws of the universe.

in your opinion, the laws of: motion, conservation of mass/energy, thermodynamics, electrostatics, and biology - were all invented by some hyperintelligent cosmic being?

that is a fascinating premise. but you have to PROVE they were invented by an intelligent being. as far as all studies have demonstrated these principles are all completely natural and not "designed". im sure you are smart enough to propose a method of testing and confirming the artificial as in fabricated nature of the protocols that govern reality as we know it.

I've found this site to be useful for beginners wanting to know more about evolution.

Great for kids if you have them.

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions
www.pbs.org...

Peace 😁

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

And you're another one who disappears into the ether and never responds to posts that cite the scientific evidence. The post by Grimpachi is an example - this was an excellent post with a YouTube that described a very interesting experiment which refutes your position. Did you respond? Hell no - why should you? You might learn something!

Perhaps you should watch that video again: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ha! Every time I respond to something and post a q - crickets!

btw - I can't watch that link since it's not available.

a reply to: Phantom423

DNA is not "alive"

Did I ever say DNA is alive?

I said "life to life".

DNA is the BLUEPRINT TO LIFE, not death.

Evolution on the other and is a dead end.

DNA can't come about w/o preexisting life.

a reply to: edmc^2

I said "life to life".

That's what you said. Your attempt to cover your tracks isn't working. You don't have a clue about any of this - who are you trying to convince? Yourself? You missed the mark by a long shot with everyone else!

a reply to: edmc^2

If you read beyond the end of your nose you would see that it directs you to a YouTube link. In your case, you just don't want to know so any excuse will work.