On The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis.

In other words you do not understand science and have nothing useful to offer.

 

Pretty close interpretation, but a little bit loose.

Indeed as I demonstrated gibberish is useful in science.
Indeed I stated that I have no gibberish to offer.

That is how it is tied together in my own words.

 

I am in computer science (not biology or chemistry) so I would not be able to explain the technical information any better the articles that have been discussed here. If the evidence published by actual scientists in these fields does not convince you, I assumed you had an alternative that provided better evidence. If your belief is based purely on faith, I respect your right to those beliefs but it is unfair to deny science when faith provides even less hard evidence.

 

Thanks a lot, but I have no beliefs related to my faith I have ever expressed on the subject of evolution.
Actually I have expressed no beliefs for you to respect or disrespect.

Tell me do they use evidence (except for forensic) in computer science?
I would be grateful if you could give a link where they use evidence (except for forensic) in computer science.
I googled and didn't see any on the first page.
If computer science in the same way as I do has no use for evidence (except for forensic) should I also respect computer science as your belief based purely on faith?

In difference from you I had to take quite a load of chemistry and I can assure you there is no use of evidence in chemistry. You can google or ask a chem. professor. You may first make sure the professor is an atheist.
At least my professor was an atheist. But I never heard the word evidence from her.

 

edited

 

The endless demand of Darwin's Faithful is that his claims must not and cannot be rejected UNLESS AND UNTIL some substitute hypothesis has not only been submitted, to the utter satisfaction of Darwin's Faithful, but such claims must also have been PROVEN.

That is the most UNscientific demand imaginable. It should be challenged each and every time it is invoked. Arguments, hypotheses, or theories which do not fit with the facts must be abandoned, irrespective of whether or not some "better" explanation is made.

 

NO ALTERNATIVE IS NECESSARY to reject any hypothesis. Didn't you even know that? Darwin's Faithful incessantly demand something better as a precursor to admitting the failure of macroevolution. Don't you know that science accepts or rejects theories based on the strength of all available evidence SUPPORTING THAT PARTICULAR THEORY, NOT on the basis of an "alternative that is so much better."

 

If you look up photos of cretinism you'll see that the fossil does resemble the severe cases of the disease.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=cretinism&FORM=HDRSC2&PC=APPM

 

I don't think the evolutionists get this at all. They think there has to be some kind of plausible explanation, then declare it as 'settled science' until something better comes along. I have probably made this point a dozen times or more in this forum alone. They moan about the only alternative they can imagine, which is abhorrent to them.. but i think they sell themselves short. It is possible to keep a naturalistic view of the universe, but just not know the details or the mechanisms.. that can be a hopeful discovery. But that would be logical & honest, something evolutionists are not prone to. They demand conformity to THEIR world views, & immediately reject any alternate explanations or conflicting evidence. I have seen a lot of dogmatism in my time, but none that compares to the dogmatic views of dedicated evolutionists.. their zeal for their ideology would make a jihadist blush. And i have met very few that are in any scientific field.. most are amateurs, with a background in pbs nature shows, or the daily emails from 'Atheism Today'. They are good at ridicule & ad hominem, but woefully short on evidence or facts. ..which is understandable. There are no facts that support macro evolution.. all they have is the false equivalency from micro evolution.

Science does not care about what is plausible, only that which can be proved by the scientific method. Imaginings & conjecture can sometimes be the beginning of discovery, but they can also be the end of it. Abiogenesis IS 'scientifically' impossible. it has been attempted thousands if not millions of times over several centuries. They have speculated many ingredients, & tried to 'create' life from all the building blocks put together that nature could never duplicate, but still no cigar. Not even close.

 

Which you didn't asked for. However here it is.

Habilis, scientists are still arguing about it.

http://creationwiki.org/Homo_habilis

Neanderthals, human.

http://www.icr.org/article/neanderthals-are-still-human/

 

How did the eyespots evolved in the first place? How did the eye for the owl (which is telescopic) evolved?

Flying can be a great advantage but it doesn't mean I can evolve a pair nor does it explain how did they evolved.

I don't claim that the Bible is science. I claim that its scientifically accurate when dealing with the topic and there's evidence for a creator but I don't claim the Bible itself is. However you claim that abiogenesis IS science and that's what I object to. Plus it's the topic of the thread.

 

Eyes formed (not "evolved") over some 60 different and separate pathways. All sophisticated animal eyes utilize rhodopsin, an enzyme which flips back and forth from the cis form to the trans form in less than 1/10,000th of a second to give almost instantaneous feedback to the brain.
Convergent evolution of such a nature is so improbable as to effectively be 0.

Everywhere one looks, the statistics demanded of random mutations followed by that magic tautology, "selection," are insuperable. They preclude the Darwinian Faith.

Nevertheless, consider the profound velocity of light, which is 3 x 10 to the 10th centimeters per second. This is commonly called 186,000 miles per second. This velocity is critical for a number of reasons which supercede its importance to our vision. It enables radiocommunications all around the world to be effectively instantaneous. Most of all, it accounts for the extraordinary amount of heat produced by nuclear fusion in our sun and all stars, for c is squared in accounting for solar radiation falling on earth, which we depend on daily. Slightly less than 3 x 10 to the 10th, and earth would be an ice cube.

Those who pretend the velocity of light, and the gravitational constant, and the strong force constant, and many others, somehow organized themselves are as anti-mathematical, as anti-scientific and illogical as they can possibly get. They simply have an ax to grind, and claim that realities contrary to their atheist faith aren't real.

-----------------

Then there is the human ear, which performs Fourier analysis on all sounds impinging on the tympanic membrane. Stereophonic hearing, which enables us to determine the direction from which sounds originate, is ONLY possible because the velocity of sound in air is so SLOW. Likewise we can enjoy stereo music because of the time differential of sounds arriving at our respective ears. More "luck" from... nothing? Riiiiight.

Human ears and human eyes each detect their respective stimuli over a range of approximately 14 orders of magnitude. Poor "design"???
Riiiiight.

The human eye can discern the smallest amount of energy in the universe - a single photon of energy.

If human eyes performed Fourier analysis on light, as our ears do on sound, white light would be broken down into its component spectral lines the same way a prism separates white light. But either a Brilliant Creator designed these things, or else.... NOTHING did.

Pick your answer wisely. There will be a test. A big one.

 

I was talking calmly with RO.
Now 3 more guys came and started yelling at him.
It may cause an adverse reaction.
If he is not catching up with a calm voice he will hardly catch up when yelled at.
I don't see a conclusive proof that he is a devoted believer more a fanatic of evolution.
He looks like he is just a deceived victim.
He most likely is not paying attention.
But he is in computer science.
Of course, if he was in chemistry he would catch up quickly and wouldn't be so easy to be deceived in the first place.
And of course if he was in engineering evolutionists would have practically no chance with him.
But computer science is not a BS.
I would give him a chance.
3 on one saying the same thing in all different words and capitol letters does not help.
.

 

Especially when 3 of them are offering alternative explanations, thus getting caught in the same BS.

 

So what? Simply playing fast and loose with the term does not invalidate the concept.

 

I will answer that question for you. It is relentlessly DEMANDED by Darwin's Faithful that some "alternative" MUST BE PROVIDED before the Religion of Darwinism is abandoned. That is unscientific in the extreme. If any theory is not borne out by facts, it must be abandoned, irrespective of any "alternative" theory. If you cannot grasp even that simple facet of science, there can be no talking to you.
I suspect that you do grasp it, you simply will not admit as much. Leftists never admit they were wrong, and Darwin's Faithful are reliably on the Left, always wrong but never in doubt.

 

But you have not proven evolution to be false. You have only suggested alternative explanations for the fossil and genetic evidence. That is not sufficient to prove that the theory is wrong.

If, however, you have a competing theory that could provide the level of experimental verification you demand of the theory of evolution, that would demonstrate that your theory is better. That is the way Newton convinced the world that the earth was in orbit around the sun instead of the universe being in orbit around the earth.

 

Becoming Human - Episode 1 - First Steps (Homo Sapiens)
[video=youtube;AD47C8jP6Hw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD47C8jP6Hw[/video]

 

You said you are in computer science.
You never address a text you quote.
You always address what is not in a text you quote.
I mean not there at all.
You always get thanks from blind believers in En.

I have to conclude you gave us a bot.

Are you demonstrating that contribution of all believers in En to a debate is no different from contribution of a bot?

Man, that is so cool.
That is frigng hilarious.

 

Evolution simply CANNOT be proven false. Don't you even understand that?
Eminent science philosopher, Karl Popper, said science is falsifiable, and one time historic events are not subject to scientific falsifiability.
All we have is evidence, and you deny that again and again, relying on your Darwinian Religion.

~ciao

 

Rehashing the eye argument (proposed by many creation does not make it any more correct the second time around.

Yes there are natural selection mechanisms. The random mutations that make the entity less likely to survive get weeded out because the entity cannot pass on those genes.

The original teleological argument was refuted by Hume. This new age teleological ignores that the fundamental forces shape the whole universe. Of course we would observe that these forces have to be perfectly aligned to produced the universe we live in. It would be a miracle if the fundamental forces dictated a different universe than we currently have and we still had the current universe, but that is not the case.

Stereophonic hearing is achieved by different mechanisms in different species, but yes a species adapted a mechanism that increases it survival. It is beneficial to the survival of the species to have stereophonic hearing. I agree that the Fourier transform performed by the tympanic membrane is amazing, but it is not perfect. There are many additional mechanisms that allow the highest frequencies to be computed.

That is quite a wide range, but bats and other animals have much larger ranges of hearing. Additionally, hawks, eagles, and reptiles have much better eye sight than us. Does that make them better designed than humans? Why would a intelligent designer do that?

Only in the most controlled experiments when the rods are dark adapt. This has never been observed in a living organism. Additionally, only the rods are able to do this, not the cones.

We see white light due to the processing in the brain not the processing in the eye. The cells in the eye only break light down into the visible spectrum of a very small range. The three types of cones are short, medium, and long which detect light in the blue, green, red. The rest of the colors and perception itself is processed in the brain.

It is always interesting to see people cherry pick scientific findings to support their belief in God. Yet, they will ignore any finding that challenges their belief in God. Science and religion do not need to be antagonistic. They have separate goals and people who try to use one to disprove the other are quite misguided. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of science and religion.

 

I described one theory about evolution of the eyes, and I offer no evidence that this is the way eyes developed... but you offer no evidence that they were made supernaturally, so we are on equal footing.

I could point out circumstantial evidence that some fish use their fins like wings underwater, and some birds have lost the ability to fly, but use their wings like fins in the water, but that is only circumstantial evidence. Do you even have circumstantial evidence that wings were created by a supernatural event?

Science does not explain exactly how abiogenesis took place, but there are lots of potential experiments to be conducted so the most you can say is that they have not yet discovered a mechanism that can recreate abiogenesis. Are you aware of any experiments underway that would verify creation by supernatural action?

 

In order to displace the theory of evolution you have to provide a better theory with better evidence (the way the Ptolemaic model of the universe with earth at the center, was superseded by the model that places the sun at the center of the solar system with better evidence). You have no better theory to supersede the theory of evolution do you?

 

PURE AND UTTER NONSENSE! When a theory fails, it must be rejected. End of story.
Your excuse is anti-scientific, and anti-intellectual. Stop with your inane word games.
You're #4 on my Ignore List due to your insistence on regurgitating your talking points.



~ciao

 

That's frigging hilarious.
RO should do a bot for another side, too.