Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   From protobionts to living cells
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 8 of 48 (497265)
02-03-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Cedre
02-03-2009 7:18 AM


Re: From protobionts to living cells - a response to Bluejay and Mr Jack
Cedre writes:
The question that must be asked after such a long period of time has passed is, have scientist ever regarded the likelihood that evolution as a theory may not be as probable as it is presumed by the larger science community?
Evolution happened, is still happening, has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild, and has NOTHING to do with the origin of life.
Have they (scientist) ever been plagued by the thought that they might perhaps be wasting expensive time and money trying hard to substantiate and sustain an untrue theory?
Evolution IS true.
They wouldn't dare ask such questions because the only alternative that remains afterwards for the cause of life on earth is God.
Wrong. Panspermia is one of the other possibilities, as is any other imaginary being.
Mr Jack I fail to understand that in the face of such meager evidence to backup the notion of life emerging devoid of other living matter in vicinty from non-living matter how can you still make the claim;
"It (abiogenesis) certainly happened, there is no doubt about that, we know for certain that there was no life on Earth 4.6 billion years ago, and there was by 3.5 billion years ago (and probably by 4 billion)."
Because life MUST have come from non-living matter at some point in time, there simply is no other way, it has not always existed, and yet it exists today.
I must wonder is the scientific community afraid to admit the wrongness of this (abiogenesis) hypothesis, because the only other alternative is creation, so they deliberately mislead the masses and kill off their faith in a higher being. I don't know its just a thought.
Science has no such agenda. They simply seek naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena. And as pointed out, There are more then 2 options for the emergence of life upon Earth.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Cedre, posted 02-03-2009 7:18 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Cedre, posted 02-03-2009 8:04 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 16 of 48 (497309)
02-03-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Cedre
02-03-2009 8:04 AM


Re: From protobionts to living cells - a response to Huntard
Dear Huntard more than mere words will do to take me in, I want evidence laid out on the table before me to inspect for myself - hardcore evidence.
What? Just like you provide for your statements?
All this:
And natural selection does not qualify as an evidence neither does cell mutation as neither process has been witnessed in the lab or in the wild to add new information to an indiviuals genome or to a population's gene pool. If I'm mistaken then present me with evidences to the contrary. Natural selection cannot accommodate too large changes to an indivual or to a population, though it can result in great variety but such changes are confined to a species, it has never been observed to transform an indivual into something else so that it can no longer be called its former self. We know of dog varieties or even cat varieties but we have never known of a dog that for example became a cat and vice versa.
Mutations are harmful,fullstop. Though some who are desperate will say that Most are harmful living room for a few useful ones. How can anything random and sudden be beneficial especially when it comes to life-forms, everything in the body is ordered and systematic, the body is composed of millions of cells one could dub as micro-factories, that work together in an neat manner to produce useful results. A mutant cell is out of control and wayward it violates regulation and disturbs normal body function and growth. Other than this what other evidences have been used to back the theory of evolution? close to nothing.
Is absolutely without evidence. Yet you expect me to get you some? If you come up with evidence for your claims, I'll come up with evidence for mine.
Oh, and calling Wounded King ignorant on mutations wasn't very wise, he's an actual scientist looking into that kind of stuff, he's done the experiments and seen the results.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Cedre, posted 02-03-2009 8:04 AM Cedre has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 19 of 48 (497389)
02-04-2009 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cedre
02-04-2009 1:13 AM


Re: Mutations
As beguiling as your offer sounds dear Wounded King, for the time being I"ll have to pass it up (not chicken out), instead I think that I'll linger a while longer on the subject of origins. However, I couldn't help notice that my refering you to a page has been an altogether otiose undertaking. I wonder how much evidence it will take to convince you people. Concerning the page, either you didn't analyse the sound evidence that is provided in it that clearly show the infeasibility of mutations to bring forth useful adaptations, or it may well be you've been blinded from seeing the evidence which is right before you by the dogmatic views of darwin followers.
The reason you don;t get a reactoin to your link is because we don;t debate links here. I will say this about it however, Answers in Genesis is NOT a reliable resource for the facts about evolution. Try this Talkorigins article on mutations to see where they go wrong. Yes, I know, no debating of links, so this is the last I'll say about it. Start that new thread, or have Woundedking start it up if you're ready for it.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 1:13 AM Cedre has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 22 of 48 (497400)
02-04-2009 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cedre
02-04-2009 3:49 AM


Re: responding to Dr adequate
Cedre writes:
Your statement is frightfuly bold, Dr adequate. I will not speak for others but from experience I can avow that the different men and women who write on AiG are real qualified scientists, some of them are on a par with the best of what evolution can offer, and post regualarly in scientific journals and/or serial publications. What is more, though, is that, these scientists are also bible-believing christians, and to me it seems silly that they they would publish information with the intend to cozen unwitting readers. What good would it do for them but send them straight to the pits of hell. The bible guarantee us that all liars will have their part in hell, and in any event honesty is one of Christianity's precepts.
The point is they probably think they're right, and are thus not lying. They're wrong, but they think they're right. Or, even if they know they're wrong, they think god will forgive them, since they're getting more people to believe in him, even if it is through lying.
Edited by Huntard, : Quote mistake

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 3:49 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 4:10 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 24 of 48 (497404)
02-04-2009 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Cedre
02-04-2009 4:10 AM


Re: responding to Dr adequate
Cedre writes:
No Dr adequate the point is you need to take one of their articles and debunk it word for word, if you can do that in a winning manner, I might display some respect for evolution and I might even make the cross over into your camp, if evolution is a reality, hey man! then anything is possible in this world. But I specially challenge you to take on one of their many articles dealing with mutations. If you're so positive that it's all a load of hotair then you won't have any difficulty debunking it. Good Luck!
I'm not Dr Adequate, I'm Huntard. And like I said before, we don't debate links here. Open up a new thread on mutations and you'll see your assertions ripped to shreds. Since this thread is about origins, and they have nothing to do with mutation, this is the last I'll say on this. I will say this on origins: "I don't know where the first life came from, and for all I care you claim it came from god, I have no problem with this, but playing god of the gaps hasn't worked very well in the past."

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 4:10 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 4:41 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 27 of 48 (497412)
02-04-2009 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cedre
02-04-2009 4:41 AM


Re: Hunted
Hello Cedre,
The problem started when you said the origins of life have to do with evolution, which they don't. But fine, let's forget about that. What do you think shows god's hand in the origin of life?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 4:41 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 5:10 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 31 of 48 (497419)
02-04-2009 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Cedre
02-04-2009 5:10 AM


Re: Hunted
Cedre writes:
Well it's suprising for you to ask that question, my man, where've you been all this time, don't you get outsite of the house every so often to marvel at the beauty and sheer genius of nature. The hand of God hasn't been more evident in nature since the birth of science that has started unravelling the cell to unearth such involutions as the citric acid cycle, glycolysis and the various transport mechanism involved in generating useful energy, the slitting of the DNA helix ending up in two daughter DNA, transcription, translation I'm out of breath at this point but no doubt the list doesn't take my loss of breath in account it continues on smoothly. The hand of God is evident and logic supports that notion, science may not be able to validate his existence beyond a shadow of or doubt but it sure does a brilliant task at revealing his handywork in nature
The hand of god is only evident if you first believe in that god. For Muslims it's allah's hand, for Hindu's it's vishna's. You can say god used evolution to get where we are now, you'll get no argument from me. You can say god initiated the big bang, no argument from me either. You can say god is responsible for the laws within this universe that led to it being the way it is today, also, no argument from me. But bear in mind that the same can be claimed for ANY imaginary being.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 5:10 AM Cedre has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 36 of 48 (497425)
02-04-2009 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Cedre
02-04-2009 5:34 AM


Re: Hunted
Cedre writes:
Perhaps Mr Hunter you do not realise just how huge a bone of contention not being able to explain how life originated for evolution is, if truth be told, it is a huge prickly thorn embedded out of reach in the side of evolution and no amount of abiobabble surgery will get rid of it.
That reply was made by Annafan, not me (Huntard). And, as has been explained to you plenty of times now, evolution doesn't care where life came from! This thread is about the origin of life, not about the evolution of it, please provide some evidence for the hand of god in the origin of life, and drop this evolution thing, it's a seperate matter altogether.
Let me explain why, Number one life as said by evolutionist has come about from non living mattr via four physical and chemical process aided by the(blind)force of natural selection and transforming abilities of mutations. Second the joining of the above-named monomers and others to form nucleic acids and other molecules such as amino acids. Third the arranging of these molecules into "protobionts" membrane-bound droplets with internal conditions differen't from that of their surroundings (So what my house has got conditions different from that of my yard, we keep it warm in winter and cool in summer but it doesn't mean its going to come to life someday or spontaneaosly give rise to a living cell). Then finally origin of self-replicating molecules that ushered in the age of replication. As easy as that. Hardly this sounds good on paper but what is its relevance to real world.
Evolution says NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, about the origins of life.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 5:34 AM Cedre has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024