BECAUSE we are here and BECAUSE we have the beautifully designed and highly complex DNA/RNA systems operating perfectly, then of necessity there MUST have been BILLIONS of years between that period and the first hard-body-part fossils
Completely wrong. We have dated the earliest life to nearly 4 billion years old. The earliest hard-body-part fossils are of the order of half a billion years old. The billions of years is not assumed because it is necessary - it is simply hard geological data.
You obviously have an a priori commitment to the idea that life has evolved from simple to complex
I have no a priori commitment to anything - not since finally shrugging off twenty-plus years of being a born-again Christian - when I observe the geological record, I see simpler life over-layed by more complex life. Spotted any rabbits in the pre-Cambrian recently?
so your worldview is revealed here by the circular reasoning displayed
So as I said, what circular reasoning?
You are full of compliments this evening!
Unlike you, I don't go around implying that scientists don't have a fucking clue. As a scientist, I sort of get annoyed by that...
the point that I was making is that the fundamental laws of chemistry do not provide a solution to the problem of where the cellular energy came from
I'm sorry, what "fundemental laws of chemistry" and what "cellular energy"? What are you talking about? At the level of these proto-cells, we're a long long way from ATP. Please spell out clearly your objections, because I don't speak layman-ease.
And then you try to slip in Sarfati's crap, as if I wouldn't recognise his idiocy. He may be from your neck of the woods, but his bullshit has spread far and wide. We have possible and plausible pathways to abiogenesis. Every prior creationist objection to science that has been raised has been soundly demolished. Do you really think that there is any mileage in continuing to try to say "this just isn't possible". Didn't you start to take the hint when we sussed out thunder and lightning? How many thousand gaps do we have to close before you finally realise that trying to shoe-horn your god into those gaps is fruitless. Do you really think that one day, a gap will be found, and you will say "Aha! I knew God must have been in there somewhere" Did faith simply fall out of fashion somewhere down the line?
Is your god so crap that he cannot create a Universe in which life can spontaneously arise? Is his creation so pathetic that he has to keep putting his hand in to make it actually do anything?
I wondered how long it would be before someone trotted out the old anthropomorphic argument. Not impressed!
My first research papers were written on the Anthropic Principle (not anthropomorphic, you muppet) - guess how much I care about whether you're impressed or not :laugh:
As I said, the Weak Anthropic Principle does not need to be trotted out except for those too ignorant to understand the bleedin' obvious.
so obviously you are not in the slighest bit surprised about anything as trivial as the millions of complex factors that make this little planet Earth suitable for life, because it goes with the territory that you have chosen to believe.
:laugh: I have billions upon billions of trials and you expect me to be suprised when one of those trials results in millions of complex factors coming together... you need to add statistics to your ever growing list of "stuff I ought to know a bit about before I make an idiot of myself again"
As I first said to you - you are trying to claim all this evidence for "design", and all we have to do is show plausible natural means to explain your "design" and your evidence crumbles to nothing. It doesn't mean it wasn't designed, it just means that you have no evidence. Which just leaves you with faith, which is how it should be. I would have thought you would know that...
If man is in fact a machine dressed up as a human, then the theory of blind evolution is nil and void.
That been the case “Intellectual Supremacy” Footprint has squashed the live out of your theme of what reality is all about. Your not only on the wrong page as to the scientific modern views, your not even in the same "REALITY". :-)Hehehehe
Pictures in the photo album are: • The three stages in the evolution of life. • Cellular Metabolic pathways • DNA computer logic pathways
Be very careful NOT TO LEARN ANYTHING NEW - It might hurt you too much
If man is in fact a machine dressed up as a human, then the theory of blind evolution is nil and void.
Looking at the evidence available evolution is the method of manufacture used to develop the human machine. Coyote was nice enough to supply a skull photo of a 1.75 myo model. The model from sixty million years ago looked like a rat sized weasel. 500 mya it was worm shaped.
That been the case “Intellectual Supremacy” Footprint has squashed the live out of your theme of what reality is all about.
That been the case? That been the case? How did you leap from "If man is…" to "That been the case…"? If you pulled it out of your butt it's worthless as evidence. That being the case I hope you've kept the evidence elsewhere.
Your not only on the wrong page as to the scientific modern views…
None of what you have presented is the modern scientific view. It's all stuff you made up yourself. Why is it no one but you can see through this illusion?
You're a strange, little man.
P.S. Blind evolution is null and void. You've been told that a few score times at least. Natural selection "sees" the local environment.
Edited by lyx2no, : Post script.
Edited by lyx2no, : Composition
Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
Ok, I can seee it now. I'm afraid that all it can really be said to prove is that "form follows function". The fact that similiar symbology is used may just reflect a human tendency to reuse the same symbol. Coyote is right, it proves nothing.
The real kicker is that they don't actually look more than superficially alike. The chemical diagram shows far greater complexity than the circuit. Indeed, one has to wonder if it might not be simplified; why would an intelligent designer create something so needlessly complex?
Mutate and Survive
"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
So are you suggesting Tony, that each and every single chemical process: photosynthesis, chemical synthesis, biodegradation, catalyst, etc. requires God's divine hand to "stir the pot", so to speak, to make them occur? In other words, nothing could occur on its own without a divine Prime mover/"unmoved mover"/First Cause/etc?
If so then your argument is truly 100% supernatural (philosophical) and 0% natural (scientific) in nature. Again, the natural (science) cannot explain the supernatural (capricious actions by a divine entity). And you cannot provide natural evidence for supernatural causes. It is oxymoronic to say otherwise.
Go spread your nonsense in a philosophic forum not in a science forum asking for evidence.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
I'm sorry? Wrong "direction"? What "direction" is there in Darwinian Eviolution other than local fitting to the local environment?
The point here that I was making is that the direction of ordered complexity required for the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis to hold water is upward, ie. with regard to the alleged results of the hypothesis, the alleged evolution of species from microbes to humans over vast time.
The strange thing is that the overwhelming body of actually TESTABLE real physical evidence is that ordered complexity is heading downhill ie. ordered complexity is in fact shown to be decreasing through the action of DNA copying mistakes in the DNA information of living species. No new information being written, just information being broken, jumbled with the consequence being that the meaning lost.
To elaborate for you, consider the following letter sequence:- "jedpTus rmathefoionhatwj aitustumheinreisgtone ecaeI ustblb", it doesn't actually mean anything does it. "The information that was there is gone because I just jumbled it up". The preceding sentence that coded to have meaning is now meaningless, the information is lost, even though in this particular instance all the letters are still there, they are not going to reassemble themselves to the sequence that once again reads, "The information that was there is gone because I just jumbled it up".
The same principle applies in respect to information on the DNA code. I was merely indicating that this can be beneficial to a specie even though ordered complexity in the DNA that codes for a particular trait has been lost. This is natural selection at work. Of course the opposite is true to, whereby the copying error in the DNA disadvantages the organism and it is selected against. Either way a portion of the information coding for ordered complexity in the DNA is lost, it's gone.
This loss of information coding for ordered complexity is not what one would expect to see, if Darwinian evolution was the correct mechanism by which the diversity of species originated, because the information coding for ordered complexity is heading in the wrong direction. Nothing more, nothing less.
You surely can't be arguing that "complexity" is some sort of "goal" for evolution, can you? I think you need to learn a bit about evolution before you sound so sure of yourself and your quotations...
If the theoretical result of the actions of the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis are not those that have brought about increasing ordered complexity, then the theory provides no explanation as to how so called higher life forms came in to existence from the assumed first "primitive cell". Natural selection is occurring, without doubt but natural selection decreases ordered complexity, so that the inevitable result over enough time will be, I suggest to exponentially accelerate the breakdown of previously efficiently functioning cellular mechanisms as ordered genetically coded information is lost over generations. As the proportion of copying errors in a species population increases, the likelihood of those errors to express and cause constructional and bio-chemical damage is increased. This may explain why many new diseases, deformities and other types of organism damage are appearing in comparison to a lesser increase per species population in the past. One thing is for sure, the loss of coded genetic information occurring through copying errors and likely other mechanisms within the DNA strands is not consistent with Darwinian evolution !
BTW Work commitments may keep me away for a while, but I will get back to all in good time.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20