why 'evolutionism' is a religion

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
edge:
On the other hand, since life did diversify by natural methods why couldn't it have originated by naturalistic processes?

​

quote:

​

John Paul:
Baseless assertion. IF life originated via purely natural processes then why is it so hard for us to duplicate that feat in a lab, under ideal conditions? Why can't we duplicate the alleged great transformations in a lab via genetic engineering?

​

---

That natural methods were responsible for abiogenesis is not baseless assertion. Every single observed process is the result of a material naturalistic process. BAR NONE.The supernatural/God has never been observed. NEVER.So to infer a framework that has never, ever, been observed is baseless.To infer something that has NEVER been observed, over something that has ALWAYS been responsible, where mechanisms are evident (without fail), is the most craven act of pseudoscience yet.This is tantamount to saying pink fairies did it.This is purely a God of the gaps argument. Take two paragraphs from your opening post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

There is no way to conduct an experiment to substantiate the claims made by evolutionists. We haven't conducted an experiment to substantiate endosymbioses, in fact we haven't conducted any experiments to substantiate any of the gradiose claims made by evolutionists. Why is that? All that is said in their defense is "There isn't enough time to observe the changes you are talking about." How convenient it is to be an evolutionist.
When you look at it, their 'science' is based upon inference totally biased by materialistic naturalism. However there is absolutely no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes. So without that evolutionists try to distance themselves from abiogenesis. So if life didn't originate via purely natural processes what would make anyone believe it diversified via purely natural processes?

​

---

There is no way to conduct an experiment to substantiate the claims made by evolutionists - GapWe haven't conducted an experiment to substantiate endosymbioses - Gapin fact we haven't conducted any experiments to substantiate any of the gradiose claims made by evolutionists - GapAll that is said in their defense is "There isn't enough time to observe the changes you are talking about." How convenient it is to be an evolutionist. - GapHowever there is absolutely no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes - GapHow many pieces of evidence have you brought in support of creation?God of the gaps - 5Objective, creation science - 0Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

Mark:

​

That natural methods were responsible for abiogenesis is not baseless assertion.

​

John Paul:
Sure it is. We have no evidence that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes. That makes it a baseless assertion.

​

---

What other basis would you assert? We’re not talking causes, but entire frameworks.Give a reason for asserting supernatural mechanisms without quoting lack of natural evidence. No God of the gaps, please.That there is no direct evidence of a natural mechanism is irrelevant. We are talking reasons for including frameworks (ugly, inappropriate word, but I can think of no other). Every KNOWN mechanism is natural in origin (by definition), there is NO REASON to believe it was supernatural. "Supernatural", for the purposes of this thread, means extra-universal-intelligent-involvement (choose your own definition, by all means, I'm just going by what you have asserted in other threads).If you maintain that natural mechanisms are ultimately of supernatural origin, please produce positive evidence.That there is only one DEMONSTRABLE framework is reason enough for its inclusion, at the expense of the un-witnessed one. This is basis. Natural mechanisms are therefore not baseless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:
Mark:
Every single observed process is the result of a material naturalistic process. BAR NONE.

​

John Paul:

​

Really? Even the process that makes computers? How about the process that makes automobiles?
Ya see if life is not the result of purely natural processes every observed process of life is therefore NOT the result of a material naturalistic process.

---

Yup, even computers & automobiles, electrons moving down neurones, ATP being expended to flex muscles etc. etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

Mark:
The supernatural/God has never been observed. NEVER.
John Paul:
Moses would say otherwise. We can observe God through God's Creation.

---

Moses can’t say anything God AND Gods creation is a circular argument. You need to prove God to prove Gods creation. You DO NOT KNOW THERE IS GOD!!!!! Believe it, by all means, don't pretend you KNOW it.If you maintain you do know there is a God, there is a thread "Is the Bible the Word of God?". Please join & give Redstang some moral support.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

Mark:

​

So to infer a framework that has never, ever, been observed is baseless.

​

John Paul:
Like I said before, if life didn't arise via purely natural processes, every observed process of life is therefore NOT the result of a material naturalistic process. But I guess it is OK for you to infer a framework that has never, ever, been observed. Typical double standard.

---

IF.The onus is on you to show there is such a thing as the supernatural. I can show the natural (by definition). Until then, there is no reason NOT to put forward natural mechanistic processes as the culprit. I repeat, it is not individual causations we’re talking about, but reasons for asserting natural/supernatural frameworks.IF life didn’t arise via purely natural processes is meaningless, it asserts nothing with basis.Double standard? It will be when you give me positive evidence of supernatural mechanisms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

Mark:
To infer something that has NEVER been observed, over something that has ALWAYS been responsible, where mechanisms are evident (without fail), is the most craven act of pseudoscience yet.

​

John Paul:
By your logic the ToE is pseudoscience.

---

No. Evolution is supported by OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE. Can supernatural mechanisms say the same?If evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next, ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html ) Then it has also been demonstrated in the laboratory. http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Bacterial_Mutations.html"Today bacteria are an important tool in the study of genetics and biotechnology, but for 40 years after the rediscovery of Mendel's work and the rebirth of genetics, they were considered too simple to have genes, undergo mutation, or reproduce sexually. This is not surprising - bacteria are so small that it's very difficult to study individuals. Scientists had long observed differences between bacterial colonies, but had never realized that these differences were the results of mutations.
It was well known that if a bacterial virus was added to a flask containing bacteria, the liquid in the flask would become clear, as if the virus had killed all the bacteria. However, with time, the flask would once again become cloudy as the bacterial population rebounded - now composed of virus-resistant bacteria. This happened even when all the bacteria in the flask were the clonal offspring of a single bacterium. Although such bacteria should have all been genetically identical, some of them were susceptible to the virus while others were resistant.
Two explanations for this unexpected variation confronted the scientific community: either (1) exposure to the virus had caused some small proportion of the bacteria to become immune and able to pass this immunity on to their offspring, or (2) the virus-resistant form already existed in the colony prior to the introduction of the virus - having arisen through mutation - and it was selected for by the addition of the virus.
To determine which explanation was correct, Salvador Luria and Max Delbruck, working together at Cold Spring Harbor during World War II, devised a test. According to Luria, his inspiration for the test was his observation of a colleague playing at a dime slot machine at a faculty dance. After consistently losing for some time, his friend finally hit the jackpot. Luria realized that if the slot machine distributed payoffs randomly, according only to chance, the payoff would usually be zero, occasionally be a few dimes, and almost never be a true jackpot. However, the machine he was observing had clearly been programmed to return an excess of both zeros and jackpots.
Luria returned to the lab and set up a large number of bacterial cultures, starting each one from only a small number of cells. He allowed the cultures to grow for a while, then added virus and counted how many bacteria survived (were resistant). He reasoned that if resistance was induced in bacteria randomly, in response to contact with a virus, it would be expected to occur at a zero or low level in all cultures - like the zero or small payoffs from a slot machine operating by chance. Alternatively, if resistance was the result of a mutation, the results would be analogous to the payoff from a programmed slot machine. Most bacteria in most cultures would not mutate, but if one did, it would reproduce and when the virus was added there would be many survivors - a jackpot! By looking at the fluctuations in the pattern of payoff (viral resistance), he and Delbruck could determine whether they were governed purely by chance or if the game was "rigged" by mutation.
It turned out that the number of resistant bacteria varied greatly between cultures; the fluctuations in payoff were far too great to be accounted for purely by chance. These fluctuations proved that bacteria did undergo mutation - and that the resistance to the virus they used in the experiment (a T1 bacteriophage) arose through such mutation.
By analyzing their data further, Luria and Delbruck were also able to determine the rate of bacterial mutation from virus-sensitive to virus-resistant. The likelihood of any single bacterium mutating during each cell division was extremely low - only about one in a hundred million, explaining why it was so difficult to detect and study bacterial mutations. Luria and Delbruck were successful because they created a method that screened for the outcomes of such rare events. They screened for the mutation from virus-sensitive to virus-resistant by exposing the cultures to the fatal virus. Other mutations, for which there was no such screening method, would have been almost impossible to detect. "

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

John Paul:
Actually there are so many gaps any running back could score on any play from anywhere on the field. Close the gaps and then get back to me and I will change my position on the ToE being a religion.

---

Actually there are so many gaps.But there are stones to keep your feet dry on. supernatural mechanisms cannot say the same.This is why natural reasons are sought, pink fairies have no basis.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

​

Although most of John Paul's assertions have been addressed, there is one that seems to have slipped by the wayside. "We haven't conducted an experiment to substantiate endosymbioses..." There is no need to conduct an "experiment" to substantiate endosymbiosis. It has been observed in nature. I can think of three completely different modern organisms off the top of my head without even researching that are endosymbionts:

​

1. Probably the most famous is Mixotricha paradoxa, a proctist consisting of a symbiotic colony of 5 different bacteria living in symbiosis within a larger organism. There are a whopping variety of proctists in various stages of endosymbiosis. (See, for example, this article.

​

---

Fascinating stuff! A eukaryotic protist with no mitochondria, but five bacteria living symbiotically within the cell.Thanks for the link Quetzal.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-18-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-18-2002]