Avatar image for jexsu
#24651 Edited by Jexsu (1268 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

1) -Then your reasoning there must be emotion based, otherwise you would be using logic which would tell you that its not the fact that he killed her that matters in figuring out if what he did was fair, its about whether or not he gave her a good warning lol. This is common sense, which you must not have, given your response.

2) -Lol, and? We are discussing conspiracies, so it was impossible to tell what you meant exactly.

3) You display the typical close-mindedness that only a sheep could display...

Like someone else mentioned in a previous comment, there is evidence everywhere of intelligient design. DNA is just one of thousands of great examples of intelligient design.

So to say that there is no evidence at all means you must be blind or just denying the obvious evidence for some reason.

4) You paraphrased, but that didnt help you at all. You took most of what I said in that sentence and caled it paraphrasing. All you did here was took out the last few words I made in the sentence, and act like thats all I said there which makes my point in that entire sentence look illogical. You truly are desperate.

My point was that the earth and everything in it was built for mankind and the evidence is very obvious. For example, the fact that mankind has gotten as far as it has despite all of the issues the earth has is proof the earth was designed specifically for humans to live on. The fact that no other planets can sustain human life is good proof of this as well.

Its really common sense and should be obvious.

Some parts of the world are suffering due to lack of resources, but thats because of the corrupt government, which is run by evil men.

This DOES mean that God isnt helping those born in those places and suffering and probably die young too. Why that is? No clue. Its the only thing that makes no sense tbh.

5) If you read everything I said, then you would be able to connect what i said to that and see that it actually does have a lot to do with our debate. But hey, stay ignorant. Your loss.

6) Same as #3

7) Wrong. I have provided evidence for every claim Ive made, and substantial evidence at that. You are just reading only what you want to in my comments, which is proof you are, like I said earlier, just another athiest who will never stop refusing to admit to the obvious fact that there is evidence for God and a balance of suffering.

1) How does my response of being Apatheistic equate to my paragraph being emotion-based? Logic isn't accepting everything someone tells you as proof of something else... logic isn't informing me that "God exists" and the "reason" he had for killing an innocent woman (as far as I remember of the story) was warranted, simply for her looking back at Sodom. It's quite apparent that you're getting "common sense" and "logic" mixed-up with "delusion" and "fallacy."

2) "Lol, and?" ...what? O_o No, you are discussing conspiracies; I've no hand in that. I was letting you know how "more awake" is customarily used among the general public; it wasn't impossible to understand what I meant.

3) How have I displayed closed-mindedness, exactly? What kind of inflexibility has crawled out of my mind and fingers? Again, there is no irrefutable evidence of "intelligent design;" tacking on the ol' God Sticker to anything remotely unknown and can't honestly be currently explained, doesn't work. Are you aware of the proof needed for such a claim? When your "God" has decided to step off his holy toilet and actually, physically, grasp a hold of something you're screaming as "intelligently designed," -- you know, showing himself to be real -- then common sense and logic would deem that a natural phenomenon. If not believing everything is touched by "God" makes me blind, then by golly, I am herp de derp.

4) Indeed, it helped; you contradicted yourself. No, the Earth was not built specifically for mankind. We've adapted by learning and experiencing -- including biologically evolving over countless millennia -- with what is needed to survive, wherever we go. Do you know how this is indisputable? Because we can see, hear, smell, taste, touch and on those rare occasions, "sense" everything we do. Can we say the same for "God?" No, because there is no undeniable testament to "God" existing.

5) I've distinctly expressed that I've read every line you've written; you should take a peek back to my former posts. But, again, your chatter about government conspiracies and theories and your "fast metabolism" does not relate to "God" murdering infants. I can't begin to picture what is going through your head of yours.

6) Same as #3.

7) False. You have not provided one ounce of substantial evidence -- I'm beginning to think that you're tossing in random words without knowing their meaning. What you have provided, I will admit, is benign heresay (not personally a witness). And, just so we're on the same boat... continuously calling me something when I've corrected you on that very subject, sort of defeats the purpose of your argument. I'm not an Atheist, I am an Apatheist. There is no evidence that "God" exists; heck, I'll make this easy for you. Give me a prime example that legitimately proves he's real. You have one try, so make it count.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24652 Posted by Jexsu (1268 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

@spareheadone said:

@jexsu:

There is specific information in DNA to build specific proteins which do specific jobs in the body. This specific information is TRANSCRIBED onto RNA and then TRANSLATED into an amino acid chain.

The specific information is preserved through this process but not only that; there are systems in place for adjusting the DNA information so that the proteins come out more adapted to their environment. These are EDITING processes that occur after TRANSCRIPTION.

We know of only one source for complex, specific information and complex specific information systems; Intelligent Agents.

We know of another... evolution.

Saying that life must have come from an "intelligent agent" really solves nothing, because then you have the question of where that agent came from. At some point, the original life would have come about from some evolutionary process.

But the point is really moot because there's really no evidence for an intelligent agent being the original source for DNA or the complex systems in biology.

Yep.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#24653 Edited by dshipp17 (5440 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:
@spareheadone said:

@jexsu:

There is specific information in DNA to build specific proteins which do specific jobs in the body. This specific information is TRANSCRIBED onto RNA and then TRANSLATED into an amino acid chain.

The specific information is preserved through this process but not only that; there are systems in place for adjusting the DNA information so that the proteins come out more adapted to their environment. These are EDITING processes that occur after TRANSCRIPTION.

We know of only one source for complex, specific information and complex specific information systems; Intelligent Agents.

We know of another... evolution.

Saying that life must have come from an "intelligent agent" really solves nothing, because then you have the question of where that agent came from. At some point, the original life would have come about from some evolutionary process.

But the point is really moot because there's really no evidence for an intelligent agent being the original source for DNA or the complex systems in biology.

"Saying that life must have come from an "intelligent agent" really solves nothing, because then you have the question of where that agent came from. At some point, the original life would have come about from some evolutionary process."

This just isn't correct, at all; this would be just another inference that the agent is God to combine with many other forms of related indirect evidence; see post 24641 and all of the historical evidence; there's really just no reasonable reason to grip onto your stance/position; this is basically what I did and what I'm doing, accept, admittedly, I was already prone toward God, accept I'm still objective; either your just need to accept the apparent or looking more into the sources likely to house such evidence; view my clips when I post them, also, my friend.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24654 Posted by willpayton (22080 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:

"Saying that life must have come from an "intelligent agent" really solves nothing, because then you have the question of where that agent came from. At some point, the original life would have come about from some evolutionary process."

This just isn't correct, at all; this would be just another inference that the agent is God to combine with many other forms of related indirect evidence; see post 24641 and all of the historical evidence; there's really just no reasonable reason to grip onto your stance/position; either your just need to accept the apparent or looking more into the sources likely to house such evidence; view my clips when I post them, also, my friend.

Saying "it's god" means nothing. That "god" still came from somewhere. If you say he didnt need to come from anywhere or he was always there, that's just special pleading.

"there's really just no reasonable reason to grip onto your stance/position"... actually there's the very good reason that there's a vast amount of evidence that supports evolution, and none that disproves it.

"you just need to accept the apparent"... claiming that something is "apparent" is not a good argument. Whether something is apparent, or common sense, or obvious to you means nothing to others. If science worked the way your logic does, we'd be in a sorry state indeed. Luckily in science we require verifiable evidence and logical arguments that have to stand up to scrutiny.

The fact is that science has been studying biological systems and evolution now for a long time. The Theory of Evolution does a good job of explaining how biological complexity arises. And, we have evidence from other fields to back that up. I dont need to base my entire argument on claiming that things are "apparent". If anything, as soon as you resort to that it's like you're admitting you have no real argument.

If you actually had a good argument to disprove Evolution then you wouldnt need to be here spamming Bible verses and claiming that things are apparent, you would just write a paper and have it published in a peer-reviewed journal, and then wait for your Nobel Prize to be announced. But... I dont see that happening.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24655 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:

1) -Then your reasoning there must be emotion based, otherwise you would be using logic which would tell you that its not the fact that he killed her that matters in figuring out if what he did was fair, its about whether or not he gave her a good warning lol. This is common sense, which you must not have, given your response.

2) -Lol, and? We are discussing conspiracies, so it was impossible to tell what you meant exactly.

3) You display the typical close-mindedness that only a sheep could display...

Like someone else mentioned in a previous comment, there is evidence everywhere of intelligient design. DNA is just one of thousands of great examples of intelligient design.

So to say that there is no evidence at all means you must be blind or just denying the obvious evidence for some reason.

4) You paraphrased, but that didnt help you at all. You took most of what I said in that sentence and caled it paraphrasing. All you did here was took out the last few words I made in the sentence, and act like thats all I said there which makes my point in that entire sentence look illogical. You truly are desperate.

My point was that the earth and everything in it was built for mankind and the evidence is very obvious. For example, the fact that mankind has gotten as far as it has despite all of the issues the earth has is proof the earth was designed specifically for humans to live on. The fact that no other planets can sustain human life is good proof of this as well.

Its really common sense and should be obvious.

Some parts of the world are suffering due to lack of resources, but thats because of the corrupt government, which is run by evil men.

This DOES mean that God isnt helping those born in those places and suffering and probably die young too. Why that is? No clue. Its the only thing that makes no sense tbh.

5) If you read everything I said, then you would be able to connect what i said to that and see that it actually does have a lot to do with our debate. But hey, stay ignorant. Your loss.

6) Same as #3

7) Wrong. I have provided evidence for every claim Ive made, and substantial evidence at that. You are just reading only what you want to in my comments, which is proof you are, like I said earlier, just another athiest who will never stop refusing to admit to the obvious fact that there is evidence for God and a balance of suffering.

1) How does my response of being Apatheistic equate to my paragraph being emotion-based? Logic isn't accepting everything someone tells you as proof of something else... logic isn't informing me that "God exists" and the "reason" he had for killing an innocent woman (as far as I remember of the story) was warranted, simply for her looking back at Sodom. It's quite apparent that you're getting "common sense" and "logic" mixed-up with "delusion" and "fallacy."

2) "Lol, and?" ...what? O_o No, you are discussing conspiracies; I've no hand in that. I was letting you know how "more awake" is customarily used among the general public; it wasn't impossible to understand what I meant.

3) How have I displayed closed-mindedness, exactly? What kind of inflexibility has crawled out of my mind and fingers? Again, there is no irrefutable evidence of "intelligent design;" tacking on the ol' God Sticker to anything remotely unknown and can't honestly be currently explained, doesn't work. Are you aware of the proof needed for such a claim? When your "God" has decided to step off his holy toilet and actually, physically, grasp a hold of something you're screaming as "intelligently designed," -- you know, showing himself to be real -- then common sense and logic would deem that a natural phenomenon. If not believing everything is touched by "God" makes me blind, then by golly, I am herp de derp.

4) Indeed, it helped; you contradicted yourself. No, the Earth was not built specifically for mankind. We've adapted by learning and experiencing -- including biologically evolving over countless millennia -- with what is needed to survive, wherever we go. Do you know how this is indisputable? Because we can see, hear, smell, taste, touch and on those rare occasions, "sense" everything we do. Can we say the same for "God?" No, because there is no undeniable testament to "God" existing.

5) I've distinctly expressed that I've read every line you've written; you should take a peek back to my former posts. But, again, your chatter about government conspiracies and theories and your "fast metabolism" does not relate to "God" murdering infants. I can't begin to picture what is going through your head of yours.

6) Same as #3.

7) False. You have not provided one ounce of substantial evidence -- I'm beginning to think that you're tossing in random words without knowing their meaning. What you have provided, I will admit, is benign heresay (not personally a witness). And, just so we're on the same boat... continuously calling me something when I've corrected you on that very subject, sort of defeats the purpose of your argument. I'm not an Atheist, I am an Apatheist. There is no evidence that "God" exists; heck, I'll make this easy for you. Give me a prime example that legitimately proves he's real. You have one try, so make it count.

1) okay I think I know what youre saying here. What youre saying is that even if God gave a good and fair warning to lots wife (or arranged things to ensure that she would be aware of what would happen if she looked back at sodom) it still wouldnt mean that what he did is justifiable, because its still the act of killing her JUST for looking back at sodom, where people were killed, so even if he gave a warning and she did it, its her fault for not following the warning. But no matter how you slice it, killing her over that isnt a fitting punishment, as what she did couldnt possibly be bad enough of a crime to be put to death.

IF, and IF thats what youre arguing, then yes I neither agree nor disagree. Who knows why looking at sodom was a bad thing to do, God never specified why to her (as far as I know). Now if God's reason for having sodom being looked at as bad is a good reason, (which it may be, but like I said I dont know, i havent read the bible) it would at least mean that looking back at sodom was actually a crime worthy of punishment of that degree.

And I doubt that if the crime was actually worthy of the punishment he gave (or even if it wasnt) God would at the very least have gave her a fair warning, because for him not to is just totally out of character and unfair.

2) Well your reaction made it seem as if you were suggesting that I should have been more worried about the fact that the term is more commonly used by the general public that way instead.

3) Again. The fact that we human beings have advanced as a civilization means that God must, at the very least, highly favor us, his own creations. The bible makes this clear countless times lol. Sorry, but you really are an athiest sheep. Just admit it please, no one will care as everyone can already see it.

4) Your basis for all of that is simply this:

"We evolved as humans over a long time, and the evidence is that we are advanced now but werent before".

At face value, this is a plausible theory and makes sense, but when you compare it to intelligient design in terms of which is more likely, it becomes clear which makes more sense.

Evolution says that we are advanced because everything evolved by chance, and everything, no mater what it is or how complex. Thats literally it, theres no other evidence for this, its just a basis based on faith and hope and emotion, no logical thinking of any sort is involved in the process of coming to this conclusion.

Whereas intelligient design tells us that we are advanced today because God created us to naturally adapt to our world that we were placed in and that the earth was made specifically for us to be able to adapt to over time.

The evidence that supports this is huge, like the fact that no planets are survivable to live on for humans, at least not naturally. Earth is the only planet that naturally we can breathe on and has all the other things that make it the planet for humans.

Ill ask this once again: How can anything, let alone EVERYTHING, spawn from nothingess? The idea that it did is just so stupid and illogical yet you deny that again and again every post.

5) You have yet to look into the possibilities for no other reason than that you only believe what you want to, which is the actual definition of close mindedness.

6) OK

7) Wrong.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24656 Posted by Jexsu (1268 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717: Thank you. I accept your concession.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24657 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@j-man717: Thank you. I accept your concession.

What? Show me where I conceded.

Lol. Evolution is a religion, where its only, so called, "evidence" is that intelligient design isnt true, because we say so.

Thats the reasoning of a 6 year old, which you clearly are no smarter than.

Evolution's so called evidence never attempts to debunk any evidence of intelligient design, but intelligient design debunks evolution all the time.

This means that evolution is just a claim with very little convincing evidence for it. Whereas intelligient design is a claim with a large amount of convincing evidence, all of which debunks evolutions few bits of evidence, and those few bits are also very unconvincing as well.

The evidence for evolution is so unconvincing, that the only way it makes any sense is if intelligient design were not possible, (even though it is possible).

Avatar image for dshipp17
#24658 Edited by dshipp17 (5440 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:
@dshipp17 said:

"Saying that life must have come from an "intelligent agent" really solves nothing, because then you have the question of where that agent came from. At some point, the original life would have come about from some evolutionary process."

This just isn't correct, at all; this would be just another inference that the agent is God to combine with many other forms of related indirect evidence; see post 24641 and all of the historical evidence; there's really just no reasonable reason to grip onto your stance/position; either your just need to accept the apparent or looking more into the sources likely to house such evidence; view my clips when I post them, also, my friend.

Saying "it's god" means nothing. That "god" still came from somewhere. If you say he didnt need to come from anywhere or he was always there, that's just special pleading.

"there's really just no reasonable reason to grip onto your stance/position"... actually there's the very good reason that there's a vast amount of evidence that supports evolution, and none that disproves it.

"you just need to accept the apparent"... claiming that something is "apparent" is not a good argument. Whether something is apparent, or common sense, or obvious to you means nothing to others. If science worked the way your logic does, we'd be in a sorry state indeed. Luckily in science we require verifiable evidence and logical arguments that have to stand up to scrutiny.

The fact is that science has been studying biological systems and evolution now for a long time. The Theory of Evolution does a good job of explaining how biological complexity arises. And, we have evidence from other fields to back that up. I dont need to base my entire argument on claiming that things are "apparent". If anything, as soon as you resort to that it's like you're admitting you have no real argument.

If you actually had a good argument to disprove Evolution then you wouldnt need to be here spamming Bible verses and claiming that things are apparent, you would just write a paper and have it published in a peer-reviewed journal, and then wait for your Nobel Prize to be announced. But... I dont see that happening.

"Saying "it's god" means nothing. That "god" still came from somewhere. If you say he didnt need to come from anywhere or he was always there, that's just special pleading.

"there's really just no reasonable reason to grip onto your stance/position"... actually there's the very good reason that there's a vast amount of evidence that supports evolution, and none that disproves it."

No, evolution does not explain what we see very well at all and nor do the other branches of science explain how we got here, outside of God; again, I posted the following YouTube clip about a week ago that debunks your suggestion quite well; that's why you've been advised repeatedly to check out our side rather than generalizing all that volume of material by picking out people that you know don't have a science background but who are presenting our data; this is why you've been advised to approach it objectively; had you wanted to approach it objectively, you'd at least examine what our scientists are saying; taking this/your approach means that (shows me that) you're apprehensive of learning the information that might conflict with the worldview that you want to hold onto; it quite literally means that you're now just kidding yourself and you are basically in denial, as someone else suggested. I'm not saying this in gist or to mock or be argumentative towards you, I'm doing this because I truly care for your salvation, by operating as the Hand of God by God's grace and permission, of course.

Loading Video...

"If you actually had a good argument to disprove Evolution then you wouldnt need to be here spamming Bible verses and claiming that things are apparent, you would just write a paper and have it published in a peer-reviewed journal, and then wait for your Nobel Prize to be announced. But... I dont see that happening."

Except it is obvious and quite apparent and as clear from viewing my various posts that they do not only consist of posting Bible verses. I can't really do what you suggest, simply because our scientists use established scientific laws and theories to show that evolution is not a plausible explanation; they also point to all the piles of other evidence in other fields to show that God is the origin of the universe, earth, and life; but, you have to go off an expedition of exploration for yourself, largely, to discovery such, if you don't want to just take my word for it, especially in this context of debating you; if this isn't quite so apparent, I might just take your suggestion and publish a paper to get another PhD in a field besides a PhD in physics, which I'm looking into doing next; it's a great suggestion.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24659 Posted by SpareHeadOne (5904 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

We know of only one source for complex, specific information and complex specific information systems; Intelligent Agents.

I can show you how intelligent agents create information and systems that facilitate information.

I am unable to show you how nature ("evolution")can do this without intelligence.

Accidents that defy the natural course of things are a really silly suggestion for how DNA and the cell came to exist.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24660 Posted by Jexsu (1268 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717: You failed to deliver on that one chance I gave you to prove to me that "God" is real. Let me also mention, that at no time during our debate, had I insulted you; would your "God" be happy with your uncivil demeanor?

Avatar image for jexsu
#24661 Posted by Jexsu (1268 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: You can't help these people, man. They are too far gone.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24662 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@j-man717: You failed to deliver on that one chance I gave you to prove to me that "God" is real. Let me also mention, that at no time during our debate, had I insulted you; would your "God" be happy with your uncivil demeanor?

Youve ignored my questions of my last comment, questions I asked you that were essential to my "delivering of proof" to you. Thats not my fault, but yours, due to sheer ignorance.

Ill say it one more time:

The evidence for evolution is so unconvincing, that the only way it makes any sense is if intelligient design were not possible, (even though it is possible).

Evolutions only attempt to prove that itself makes sense is by making the brainless claim that intelligient design makes no sense. Meaning evolution is a religion based only on feeling and close mindedness.

In other words, the ONLY thing that evolution calls it's "evidence" is the literal claim that intelligient design isnt true.

So evolution has no evidence at all. People just insist evolution is true, and there only "evidence" is that they say so, this is because evolution doesnt require the acknowledgement of the evidence for intelligient design, even though intelligient design is the only other explanation possible.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24663 Edited by Jexsu (1268 posts) - - Show Bio
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:

@j-man717: You failed to deliver on that one chance I gave you to prove to me that "God" is real. Let me also mention, that at no time during our debate, had I insulted you; would your "God" be happy with your uncivil demeanor?

Youve ignored my questions of my last comment, questions I asked you that were essential to my "delivering of proof" to you. Thats not my fault, but yours, due to sheer ignorance.

Ill say it one more time:

The evidence for evolution is so unconvincing, that the only way it makes any sense is if intelligient design were not possible, (even though it is possible).

Evolutions only attempt to prove that itself makes sense if by making the brainless claim that intelligient design makes no sense. Meaning evolution is a religion based on feeling and close mindedness.

"How can anything, let alone everything, spawn from nothingness?" Was your only question. But, you already answered said question by stating it was "so stupid and illogical." Therefore, my answer was unneeded because you predetermined my resulting explanation as is.

Besides, insulting people is a good way of not getting what you want.

Again, I accept your concession.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24664 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:

@j-man717: You failed to deliver on that one chance I gave you to prove to me that "God" is real. Let me also mention, that at no time during our debate, had I insulted you; would your "God" be happy with your uncivil demeanor?

Youve ignored my questions of my last comment, questions I asked you that were essential to my "delivering of proof" to you. Thats not my fault, but yours, due to sheer ignorance.

Ill say it one more time:

The evidence for evolution is so unconvincing, that the only way it makes any sense is if intelligient design were not possible, (even though it is possible).

Evolutions only attempt to prove that itself makes sense if by making the brainless claim that intelligient design makes no sense. Meaning evolution is a religion based on feeling and close mindedness.

"How can something, let alone everything, spawn from nothingness?" Was your only question. But, you already answered said question by stating it was "so stupid and illogical." Therefore, my answer was unneeded because you predetermined my resulting explanation as is.

Besides, insulting people is a good way of not getting what you want.

Again, I accept your concession.

It wasnt my only question. I also asked you where I conceded.

Lol What? So now youre agreeing with the idea that anything spawning from nothing is a stupid idea?

You have yet to prove that evolution has any real evidence.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24665 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

Does it make more sense for something to spawn from absolutely nothing or does it make more sense for something to spawn from something?

Evolution says something came from absolutley nothing, which is a paradox, and is the entire basis for the theory of evolution.

Intelligient design says something came from something, which isnt a paradox and is logical.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24666 Edited by Jexsu (1268 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:

@j-man717: You failed to deliver on that one chance I gave you to prove to me that "God" is real. Let me also mention, that at no time during our debate, had I insulted you; would your "God" be happy with your uncivil demeanor?

Youve ignored my questions of my last comment, questions I asked you that were essential to my "delivering of proof" to you. Thats not my fault, but yours, due to sheer ignorance.

Ill say it one more time:

The evidence for evolution is so unconvincing, that the only way it makes any sense is if intelligient design were not possible, (even though it is possible).

Evolutions only attempt to prove that itself makes sense if by making the brainless claim that intelligient design makes no sense. Meaning evolution is a religion based on feeling and close mindedness.

"How can something, let alone everything, spawn from nothingness?" Was your only question. But, you already answered said question by stating it was "so stupid and illogical." Therefore, my answer was unneeded because you predetermined my resulting explanation as is.

Besides, insulting people is a good way of not getting what you want.

Again, I accept your concession.

It wasnt my only question. I also asked you where I conceded.

Lol What? So now youre agreeing with the idea that anything spawning from nothing is a stupid idea?

You have yet to prove that evolution has any real evidence.

You asked where you conceded after the fact, thus, it wasn't answered as a question within the boundary of "questions" you had asked prior.

No, you're misunderstanding the sentence. It means, "you have already answered your own question, so my answer is not needed for you won't accept it and call it stupid and illogical."

1893 Ford Automobile --> 2019 Ford Explorer. There, evolution.

And you have yet to prove "God" is real. And you can't.

Again, I accept your concession.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24667 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@j-man717 said:

@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:

@j-man717: You failed to deliver on that one chance I gave you to prove to me that "God" is real. Let me also mention, that at no time during our debate, had I insulted you; would your "God" be happy with your uncivil demeanor?

Youve ignored my questions of my last comment, questions I asked you that were essential to my "delivering of proof" to you. Thats not my fault, but yours, due to sheer ignorance.

Ill say it one more time:

The evidence for evolution is so unconvincing, that the only way it makes any sense is if intelligient design were not possible, (even though it is possible).

Evolutions only attempt to prove that itself makes sense if by making the brainless claim that intelligient design makes no sense. Meaning evolution is a religion based on feeling and close mindedness.

"How can something, let alone everything, spawn from nothingness?" Was your only question. But, you already answered said question by stating it was "so stupid and illogical." Therefore, my answer was unneeded because you predetermined my resulting explanation as is.

Besides, insulting people is a good way of not getting what you want.

Again, I accept your concession.

It wasnt my only question. I also asked you where I conceded.

Lol What? So now youre agreeing with the idea that anything spawning from nothing is a stupid idea?

You have yet to prove that evolution has any real evidence.

You asked where you conceded after the fact, thus, it wasn't answered as a question within the boundary of "questions" you had asked prior.

No, you're misunderstanding the sentence. It means, "you have already answered your own question, so my answer is not needed for you won't accept it and call it stupid and illogical."

1893 Ford Automobile --> 2019 Ford Explorer. There, evolution.

And you have yet to prove "God" is real. And you can't.

Again, I accept your concession.

I have proven God is real. Because I proved how evolution isnt. And the only two possibilties are evolution and God.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24668 Posted by Jexsu (1268 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for j-man717
#24669 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@j-man717: Rotflmmfao. No, no you have not.

Wheres your proof I havent?

Avatar image for jexsu
#24670 Posted by Jexsu (1268 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for j-man717
#24671 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@j-man717: Every post you've made.

Lol wow. Then quote each sentence, and explain why the sentences are false.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24672 Posted by Jexsu (1268 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for j-man717
#24673 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@j-man717: I'll pass.

Because you know every post i made was right. Get owned

Avatar image for jexsu
#24674 Posted by Jexsu (1268 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717: No, it's because I'm not obligated to. Our debate was over when you conceded.

Avatar image for sc
#24675 Posted by SC (18115 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

Does it make more sense for something to spawn from absolutely nothing or does it make more sense for something to spawn from something?

Evolution says something came from absolutley nothing, which is a paradox, and is the entire basis for the theory of evolution.

Intelligient design says something came from something, which isnt a paradox and is logical.

Hello.

The theory of evolution isn't meant to be interpreted as a claim that 'something' came from 'absolutely nothing' nor is it the basis of theory of evolution. The term evolution also has multiple definitions, academically and scientifically as well as colloquially naturally. In extremely simple terms, it details the development of life on Earth. Not necessarily its origin.

Also how would you define and describe 'absolutely nothing' in reality, and how would that compare to ordinary nothing?

Intelligent Design unfortunately, isn't the most honest of ideas. Its basically a political tool wielded to exploit peoples emotions, beliefs and misunderstanding of certain scientific ideas. We know this because its more prevalent in some countries than other countries. There are many religious people in places around the world that also adhere to and agree with scientific ideas and theories like evolution, and find them compatible with their faith, but in some places, certain figures prefer to weaponize belief. Think of individuals like Jonathan Wells.

If you are religious, yourself, cool! Do you think its possible that your religious views may actually be compatible with evolution? Many religious individuals beliefs are! Take care!

Moderator Online
Avatar image for j-man717
#24676 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@j-man717: No, it's because I'm not obligated to. Our debate was over when you conceded.

It seems you dont understand what conceded means. Regardless, given that you seem to have been unable to have realised that what I did wasnt conceding, I will gladly agree to just end our debate, as this means that our debate very likely wont be going anywhere and will just result in you refusing to debunk any of my evidence.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24677 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:
@j-man717 said:

Does it make more sense for something to spawn from absolutely nothing or does it make more sense for something to spawn from something?

Evolution says something came from absolutley nothing, which is a paradox, and is the entire basis for the theory of evolution.

Intelligient design says something came from something, which isnt a paradox and is logical.

Hello.

The theory of evolution isn't meant to be interpreted as a claim that 'something' came from 'absolutely nothing' nor is it the basis of theory of evolution. The term evolution also has multiple definitions, academically and scientifically as well as colloquially naturally. In extremely simple terms, it details the development of life on Earth. Not necessarily its origin.

Also how would you define and describe 'absolutely nothing' in reality, and how would that compare to ordinary nothing?

Intelligent Design unfortunately, isn't the most honest of ideas. Its basically a political tool wielded to exploit peoples emotions, beliefs and misunderstanding of certain scientific ideas. We know this because its more prevalent in some countries than other countries. There are many religious people in places around the world that also adhere to and agree with scientific ideas and theories like evolution, and find them compatible with their faith, but in some places, certain figures prefer to weaponize belief. Think of individuals like Jonathan Wells.

If you are religious, yourself, cool! Do you think its possible that your religious views may actually be compatible with evolution? Many religious individuals beliefs are! Take care!

Well if evolution has multiple definitions, then I guess I was just reffering to one of many.

Absolutley nothing means nothing at all. Simple as that. What else could I have meant? Lol

But Im curious to know, what exactly are these other definitions of evolution that you claim exist?

Avatar image for jexsu
#24678 Posted by Jexsu (1268 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

@jexsu said:

@j-man717: No, it's because I'm not obligated to. Our debate was over when you conceded.

It seems you dont understand what conceded means. Regardless, given that you seem to have been unable to have realised that what I did wasnt conceding, I will gladly agree to just end our debate, as this means that our debate very likely wont be going anywhere and will just result in you refusing to debunk any of my evidence.

Lmao. Trying to play the "you don't know what this word means" tactic.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24679 Posted by SpareHeadOne (5904 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu:

WillPayton said """Saying that life must have come from an "intelligent agent" really solves nothing, because then you have the question of where that agent came from. """

There is no problem with a possible answer opening up more questions; that's what usually happens in science.

WillPayton said"""At some point, the original life would have come about from some evolutionary process."""

Why? Aren't there any other possibilities?

WillPayton said """But the point is really moot because there's really no evidence for an intelligent agent being the original source for DNA or the complex systems in biology."""

In that case there is no point because there's really no evidence for accidents that defy nature being the original source for DNA or the complex systems in biology

I have seen intelligent agents acquire and string amino acids together and discover that they need a sugar backbone to make them work anywhere near like DNA.

I have never seen or read of nature doing this or anything close to it.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24680 Posted by Jexsu (1268 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for sc
#24681 Posted by SC (18115 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

Well if evolution has multiple definitions, then I guess I was just reffering to one of many.

Absolutley nothing means nothing at all. Simple as that. What else could I have meant? Lol

But Im curious to know, what exactly are these other definitions of evolution that you claim exist?

Hence the importance of people looking for common ground and clarity when discussing it. Leads to more productive and sincere conversations and discussions. Avoids drama etc. I mean, not just evolution, most words have multiple definitions. Theory for example, can often mean, informally, as a hunch or guess, but in more scientifically robust terms, it can be considered an explanation based on facts, observations, and evidence that can describe, predict and categorize phenomena.

It would be hard to have an honest and genuine conversation between two people if they both use the term theory but they are both using two different definitions.

I am asking what absolutely nothing means in actual reality. Like can you give me a real world example of absolutely nothing? Many people, when they consider the idea of nothing, realize its an abstract idea, that exists as the opposite or absence of "something" or used colloquially to describe an absence of something where something was assumed. However not necessarily literal as in existing in reality. Like consider a box with cake written on the side... but if I look in, and there is no cake, well there's "nothing" in there. Except there is probably oxygen in there, air as well as many many other types of matter I can't see. Might even be some crumbs. In the distant past, the idea of nothing was arguably more substantial, because humans senses lacked the ability to perceive the micro. Even young children, or scientifically illiterate still can be confused when confronted they are confronted with the idea, that their idea of nothing, is probably actually something, just something they don't understand. That was me for a long time.

To put it another way, imagine if I told you that there is a tree thats bigger than the universe. I am imagining it right now. Its in my imagination. Does it actually exist though? Or is my imagination not actually comprehending the scale, scope and perspective of the universe correctly? Or another way, when you ask people to think of 'nothing' many just think of a big black empty void. Except thats not actually nothing either. Its just an approximation people imagine when they try and consider nothing. Or some people consider and acknowledge its abstract quality and think of an item first then its absence, considering that apart from quantum physics and some specific fields of science, actual 'nothingness' is very hard to comprehend.

So you might be making the mistake that nothing is just a big empty void or space, but if so, we don't actually have any hard evidence of that in reality. I mean there's the Boötes void, but thats not nothing either.

Here's a better definition for evolution. Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. Your earlier comments may mean you have an interest in abiogenesis, which is he theory of how the first living organisms appeared. Hope that helps!

Moderator Online
Avatar image for spareheadone
#24682 Posted by SpareHeadOne (5904 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for willpayton
#24683 Posted by willpayton (22080 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:

No, evolution does not explain what we see very well at all and nor do the other branches of science explain how we got here, outside of God;

You can believe that if you want.

again, I posted the following YouTube clip about a week ago that debunks your suggestion quite well; that's why you've been advised repeatedly to check out our side rather than generalizing all that volume of material by picking out people that you know don't have a science background but who are presenting our data; this is why you've been advised to approach it objectively; had you wanted to approach it objectively, you'd at least examine what our scientists are saying; taking this/your approach means that (shows me that) you're apprehensive of learning the information that might conflict with the worldview that you want to hold onto; it quite literally means that you're now just kidding yourself and you are basically in denial, as someone else suggested. I'm not saying this in gist or to mock or be argumentative towards you, I'm doing this because I truly care for your salvation, by operating as the Hand of God by God's grace and permission, of course.

Sorry, a YouTube video is not a substitute for an actual argument. Also, I'm not spending 2 hours of my life watching that stuff.

Except it is obvious and quite apparent and as clear from viewing my various posts that they do not only consist of posting Bible verses.

True, you also post Creationist videos. I already destroyed one of them that was claiming all sorts of nonsense about physics and astronomy. But that's as far as I'm going, because I have better things to do with my time.

I can't really do what you suggest, simply because our scientists use established scientific laws and theories to show that evolution is not a plausible explanation; they also point to all the piles of other evidence in other fields to show that God is the origin of the universe, earth, and life; but, you have to go off an expedition of exploration for yourself, largely, to discovery such, if you don't want to just take my word for it, especially in this context of debating you; if this isn't quite so apparent, I might just take your suggestion and publish a paper to get another PhD in a field besides a PhD in physics, which I'm looking into doing next; it's a great suggestion.

I dont need to go out and research any Creationist stuff because I already know enough of it to know it's all nonsense. Again, I already dismantled a good part of that one video you posted which was laughably bad. Then you said you hadnt even watched most of it. So, you post stuff you dont watch and then put the burden on others to watch it and just believe it. Sorry, no.

If you want to make arguments to support this stuff, then do it. No one is going to watch hours of Creationist stuff that's easily debunked just because you dont want to do the work yourself.

And like I said, if you had an actual argument against Evolution, then you could publish and make a name for yourself. That hasnt happened that I'm aware of. It also hasnt happened with any of the so-called Creationist "scientists". If they're all as bad as the one guy in the video I debunked, they're pretty terrible.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24684 Posted by willpayton (22080 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

We know of only one source for complex, specific information and complex specific information systems; Intelligent Agents.

No, maybe YOU know of only one source. I already pointed out another... evolution. You just dont want to accept that as an answer.

I can show you how intelligent agents create information and systems that facilitate information.

I didnt deny that an intelligent entity can create such systems.

I am unable to show you how nature ("evolution")can do this without intelligence.

That doesnt mean it's not true.

Accidents that defy the natural course of things are a really silly suggestion for how DNA and the cell came to exist.

Yes, but that's a strawman Evolution is not "accidents that defy the natural course of things". Yes, evolution works partly because of random events, but everything else is perfectly natural and most of evolution is now well understood. And like I said before, the ideas and predictions of evolution have been verified by many methods, including ones from other fields of study. That's why Evolution is seen as one of the most well-tested and well-supported theories ever put forth.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24685 Posted by willpayton (22080 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

Does it make more sense for something to spawn from absolutely nothing or does it make more sense for something to spawn from something?

Evolution says something came from absolutley nothing, which is a paradox, and is the entire basis for the theory of evolution.

Intelligient design says something came from something, which isnt a paradox and is logical.

You clearly either dont understand anything about Evolution, or you're intentionally misrepresenting it in order to try to validate your beliefs.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24686 Posted by willpayton (22080 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc: Hey SC, how's it going? Havent seen you around in a while. Or, am I just not hanging out where the cool kids go? =)

Avatar image for deadpooluchiha
#24687 Posted by DeadpoolUchiha (144 posts) - - Show Bio

Well I don’t believe in premarital sex and I believe in evolution.As a bonus I’m a Christian who doesn’t believe that god created the universe.

I guess I’m a Christheist.

Avatar image for deadpooluchiha
#24688 Posted by DeadpoolUchiha (144 posts) - - Show Bio

I also don’t agree with everything in the Bible.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24689 Posted by willpayton (22080 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:
@sc said:
@j-man717 said:

Does it make more sense for something to spawn from absolutely nothing or does it make more sense for something to spawn from something?

Evolution says something came from absolutley nothing, which is a paradox, and is the entire basis for the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution isn't meant to be interpreted as a claim that 'something' came from 'absolutely nothing' nor is it the basis of theory of evolution. The term evolution also has multiple definitions, academically and scientifically as well as colloquially naturally. In extremely simple terms, it details the development of life on Earth. Not necessarily its origin.

Well if evolution has multiple definitions, then I guess I was just reffering to one of many.

Absolutley nothing means nothing at all. Simple as that. What else could I have meant? Lol

But Im curious to know, what exactly are these other definitions of evolution that you claim exist?

If you dont know what evolution means, and that there are several definitions of it, then why are you telling us what evolution says and that it makes no sense?

This is the main thing that annoys me with Creationists, they usually really have no idea what evolution even is or how it's supposed to work, nor do they try to learn, but they have no problem coming here and telling everyone how evolution is wrong. You, my friend, are suffering from a serious case of Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Avatar image for sc
#24690 Posted by SC (18115 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc: Hey SC, how's it going? Havent seen you around in a while. Or, am I just not hanging out where the cool kids go? =)

Hey! All is great with me, I still have time off from work, so am enjoying summer. I don't really visit CV that much, just drop in a little every few weeks to do some minor moderating and to use the wiki. I stopped reading comics for a long while, but am starting to read more recently. If there is another place people are hanging out, I am in the dark, too busy unfortunately. Tired as well.

How are you?

Moderator Online
Avatar image for spareheadone
#24691 Posted by SpareHeadOne (5904 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

"""No, maybe YOU know of only one source. I already pointed out another... evolution. You just dont want to accept that as an answer."""

Evolution is not a known source.

Evolution is a proposed source. Intelligent Agents are the only known source.

"""I didnt deny that an intelligent entity can create such systems."""

Excellent

"""That doesnt mean it's not true."""

But it does mean it may not be true.

"""Yes, but that's a strawman Evolution is not "accidents that defy the natural course of things". """

Evolution of the first life is extremely extremely different to the evolution of organisms that already have a working cell.

"""Yes, evolution works partly because of random events, but everything else is perfectly natural and most of evolution is now well understood."""

It is all random events when it comes to the first cell. Not only random events but events that go against the course of nature.

"""And like I said before, the ideas and predictions of evolution have been verified by many methods, including ones from other fields of study. That's why Evolution is seen as one of the most well-tested and well-supported theories ever put forth."""

Evolution only works because of the cell and how it operates.

It is the emergence of the information in DNA and the emergence of the first working cell that interests me.

None of what we know about the evolution of organisms is relevant in the emergence of the first working cell.

Evolution can not explain it. Intelligence can explain it.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24692 Posted by willpayton (22080 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:
@willpayton said:

@sc: Hey SC, how's it going? Havent seen you around in a while. Or, am I just not hanging out where the cool kids go? =)

Hey! All is great with me, I still have time off from work, so am enjoying summer. I don't really visit CV that much, just drop in a little every few weeks to do some minor moderating and to use the wiki. I stopped reading comics for a long while, but am starting to read more recently. If there is another place people are hanging out, I am in the dark, too busy unfortunately. Tired as well.

How are you?

I'm doing great. Lots of life changes, but that's probably for a PM if you want to hear about it. I mean, not life changes like I'm having a sex change or anything... LOL... but the regular stuff that people do. :-)

Anyway, glad to see you around. I'm actually trying to find more time to read comics as well... I'm so behind that I now have a huge stack of trades to catch up on. Makes it hard to argue on the battles forum when you're hopelessly behind... hahah.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24693 Posted by willpayton (22080 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

"""No, maybe YOU know of only one source. I already pointed out another... evolution. You just dont want to accept that as an answer."""

Evolution is not a known source.

Evolution is a proposed source. Intelligent Agents are the only known source.

Again, it might not be "known" to you, but to others it is.

"""That doesnt mean it's not true."""

But it does mean it may not be true.

Not really. You not being able to show something doesnt mean that thing might be false. Of course, in science anything could be false, you just need to find evidence for it. However, like I said the idea that evolution can generate information in DNA is already a settled thing. Even in simulations of evolutionary processes (genetic algorithms, etc) we see this happening. I'm worked on such projects.

"""Yes, but that's a strawman Evolution is not "accidents that defy the natural course of things". """

Evolution of the first life is extremely extremely different to the evolution of organisms that already have a working cell.

That might be true, but that doesnt mean there's any thing supernatural about it.

"""Yes, evolution works partly because of random events, but everything else is perfectly natural and most of evolution is now well understood."""

It is all random events when it comes to the first cell. Not only random events but events that go against the course of nature.

Well that's you claim, but I disagree. If you could prove it, like I told the other guy, write up a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If you cant do that, then you really have no basis to say that any of this is unnatural especially when the experts in the field disagree with you. The beauty of science is that you can do that if you can.

"""And like I said before, the ideas and predictions of evolution have been verified by many methods, including ones from other fields of study. That's why Evolution is seen as one of the most well-tested and well-supported theories ever put forth."""

Evolution only works because of the cell and how it operates.

Again, an unsubstantiated claim. And again i disagree. Yes, the evolutionary processes were different before the early cells, just like evolutionary processes in complex organisms is different from uni-cellular ones. But, still evolution.

It is the emergence of the information in DNA and the emergence of the first working cell that interests me.

It's a very interesting topic, so I'm with you on that. However, if you want to learn more about it, you need to approach it without having an existing notion that this or that is impossible. It's like if I was interested in building airplanes, but I was sure that planes cant possibly fly because of aerodynamics and there must be some supernatural process at work. I would not get very far in learning about the subject with that set of pre-existing beliefs, especially since all the experts would be telling me that I was wrong and I'd be telling them that THEY were wrong, even though I was no expert myself.

None of what we know about the evolution of organisms is relevant in the emergence of the first working cell.

None of what YOU know. You cant claim to know what others know or dont know.

Evolution can not explain it. Intelligence can explain it.

You dont know that evolution cant explain it.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24694 Posted by SpareHeadOne (5904 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

1) Evolution is a proposed source not a known source. That is a fact.

2) We are talking about the origin of the information and the processing system.

We are not talking about what the system does after it has emerged.

3) Lets take the supernatural off of the table in our discussion.

4) Experts in the field agree with me. I can write a paper but I can produce many papers that will show you that I am correct as usual.

5) if I do science I don't cancel out one option (such as the possibility of an Intelligent designer) I embrace all possibilities (including materialistic views). I learn much more by doing this. I think it is the staunch materialist who learns less.

6) Do explain how it is relevant.

7) I do know. I'm not saying it will never explain it. Only that it doesn't right now.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24695 Posted by willpayton (22080 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

1) Evolution is a proposed source not a known source. That is a fact.

Ok, show me how it's not a known source. If this is a fact as you say, then this should be easy for you to prove.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24696 Edited by SpareHeadOne (5904 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

30 scientists in 2018 publish a paper that reveals that evolution is not a known source of information creation.

Peer Reviewed Paper

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718300798

“Cause of Cambrian Explosion —Terrestrial or Cosmic?”

Published in the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, it comes bearing an impressive array of over thirty authors from credible institutions around the world. The journal’s editors are themselves highly credible, including Denis Noble of Oxford University. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/progress-in-biophysics-and-molecular-biology/editorial-board

The paper discusses the problems we have understanding the origin of biological information, the origin of life, the origin of new genes, the Cambrian explosion, the abrupt appearance of other complex life on Earth, and even human origins.

Regarding the origin of life the paper says...

..."""The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions (Appendix A), an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, 1982, 2000). All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure (Deamer, 2011; Walker and Wickramasinghe, 2015)."""

..."""In other words, we can now make the plausible scientific argument that a key feature of information-dense genetic systems to make more complex organisms was already here on Earth before the actual emergence of subsequent greater terrestrial complexity"""

Is that good enough?

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24697 Edited by SpareHeadOne (5904 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/

This 2018 paper is called """Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma"""

Why is it called an enigma if "evolution" is a known source for the genetic code?Because it is not a known source for the genetic code. This paper goes on to propose a number of evolutionary scenarios. Why propose different scenarios if "evolution" is a known source for the origin of the genetic code? Because it is not a known source for the origin of the genetic code.

Evolution is a proposed source for the genetic code.

From the very end of the paper....

...."""Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology."""

Avatar image for j-man717
#24698 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@spareheadone said:

@willpayton:

30 scientists in 2018 publish a paper that reveals that evolution is not a known source of information creation.

Peer Reviewed Paper

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718300798

“Cause of Cambrian Explosion —Terrestrial or Cosmic?”

Published in the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, it comes bearing an impressive array of over thirty authors from credible institutions around the world. The journal’s editors are themselves highly credible, including Denis Noble of Oxford University. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/progress-in-biophysics-and-molecular-biology/editorial-board

The paper discusses the problems we have understanding the origin of biological information, the origin of life, the origin of new genes, the Cambrian explosion, the abrupt appearance of other complex life on Earth, and even human origins.

Regarding the origin of life the paper says...

..."""The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions (Appendix A), an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, 1982, 2000). All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure (Deamer, 2011; Walker and Wickramasinghe, 2015)."""

..."""In other words, we can now make the plausible scientific argument that a key feature of information-dense genetic systems to make more complex organisms was already here on Earth before the actual emergence of subsequent greater terrestrial complexity"""

Is that good enough?

This. Its also worth mentioning that there are some branches of evolution that make more sense than others, but all of them are formed on the basis that there is and never was anything in the beggining, not even a creator or higher being, which still means every branch of evolution says that something came from absolutley nothing at all.

So every branch of evolution is debunked by that alone lol.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24699 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

The only way evolution works as a possibile explanation is if we ignore the only other possibility of what was there in the beggining, (God), but if we dont then evolution is completely debunked. To start proving evolution through the evidence one can come up with for it, you would first have to prove that something came from absolutley nothing at all. Of course, no evolutionist can nor will answer this question.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24700 Posted by SpareHeadOne (5904 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717:

The universe is eternal, life is eternal, we are eternal. We created life on earth.