Goddit versus Evolution

[calamity]

Cite your so-called evidence. Just because you keep saying there is, doesn't mean it's going to materialize! Prove it.
Put your money where your mouth is. Cite!

No problem. I'll even use a term you may be familiar with. Let's see if you notice it.

BBC - Earth - The secret of how life on Earth began

Any explanation for the origin of life must show how this complex trinity – DNA, RNA and ribosome protein – came into existence and started working...

Finding two RNA enzymes in quick succession suggested that there were plenty more out there. Now the notion that life began with RNA was looking promising...

The first stage of evolution, Gilbert argued, consisted of "RNA molecules performing the catalytic activities necessary to assemble themselves from a nucleotide soup". By cutting and pasting different bits of RNA together, the RNA molecules could create ever more useful sequences.

And, thus begins the beginning of understanding how it all began. You'll need to read the article to see the rest and learn another three letter symbol: ATP.

 

[tosca1]

No problem. I'll even use a term you may be familiar with. Let's see if you notice it.

BBC - Earth - The secret of how life on Earth began

It didn't take long to see that they're merely speculating (again). What else is new?

If we assume that life formed on Earth – which seems reasonable, given that we have not yet found it anywhere else – then it must have done so in the billion years between Earth coming into being and the preservation of the oldest known fossils.

As well as narrowing down when life began, we can make an educated guess at what it was.

BBC - Earth - The secret of how life on Earth began


Educated guess? Like as if that changes everything!
You can call it whatever kind of guess you want it to be - it's still just a GUESS! :mrgreen:

It still boils down to this same so-called 80-year old primordial soup!
Which has been debunked btw, by a couple of articles above, and proven to be nothing more but speculation!




And that secret? Looks like it will remain a secret!

We cannot know for sure what happened four billion years ago.

BBC - Earth - The secret of how life on Earth began

 

[calamity]

It didn't take long to see that they're merely speculating (again). What else is new?



BBC - Earth - The secret of how life on Earth began


Educated guess? Like as if that changes everything!
You can call it whatever kind of guess you want it to be - it's still just a GUESS! :mrgreen:

It still boils down to this so-called 80-year old primordial soup! Which has been debunked btw, by a couple of articles, and proven to be nothing more but speculation!

They have much more evidence backing up their "speculation" than does the goddidit crowd. :roll:

 

[tosca1]

They have much more evidence backing up their "speculation" than does the goddidit crowd. :roll:

SPECULATION. Read it!

Sutherland’s team argues that early Earth was a favorable setting for those reactions. HCN is abundant in comets, which rained down steadily for nearly the first several hundred million years of Earth’s history.



Could life have kindled in that common pool? That detail is almost certainly forever lost to history.
But the idea and the “plausible chemistry” behind it is worth careful thought, Deamer says. Szostak agrees. “This general scenario raises many questions,” he says, “and I am sure that it will be debated for some time to come.”

Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum | Science | AAAS



Anyway, how can anyone know comets "rained down steadily" for nearly the first several hundred million years?
No one is even sure if a comet did indeed slammed into earth 56 million years ago....and yet, here's Sutherland's team saying it rained comets steadily.....:lol:

Talk about bull!

A comet may have hit the Earth 56 million years ago, study says

A comet may have hit the Earth 56 million years ago, study says | Fox News

 

[calamity]

SPECULATION. Read it!

Presenting reasonable hypothesis, always evolving as more and more knowledge is gained, is a far better solution to the question of origins of life than goddidit. Tell me, what do you have for goddidit that is even remotely reasonable?

 

[tosca1]

Presenting reasonable hypothesis, always evolving as more and more knowledge is gained, is a far better solution to the question of origins of life than goddidit. Tell me, what do you have for goddidit that is even remotely reasonable?

It's still a hypothesis - and how "reasonable" it is, doesn't look that good ..... a couple of articles had already debunked it!

I won't call it reasonable for Sutherland's team to be saying reckless statement just to suit their narrative.
"Comets rained down steadily," my foot - baloney!

If they can spin bull like that, they can say any bull they want to say!

 

[calamity]

It's still a hypothesis - and how "reasonable" it is, doesn't look that good ..... a couple of articles had already debunked it!

I won't call it reasonable for Sutherland's team to be saying reckless statement just to suit their narrative.
"Comets rained down steadily," my foot - baloney!

If they can spin bull like that, they can say any bull they want to say!

It, the unification of all those theories presented in the BBC article, looks a lot better than goddidit. If you were honest, you'd admit that goddidit is the "spin bull.'

 

[soylentgreen]

It would be very interesting to engage you on that - because I can prove you wrong. But not on this thread.

The excuse of every theist, the proof is there but you can't show it. Unfortunately i do not see how you get around the problem of why would we consider any part of the bible to be true when the difference between literal and allegory is subjective rather than factual.

 

[tosca1]

The excuse of every theist, the proof is there but you can't show it. Unfortunately i do not see how you get around the problem of why would we consider any part of the bible to be true when the difference between literal and allegory is subjective rather than factual.

The excuse of the non-theist, there is no evidence. They can't see it because they got their eyes - and their mind - closed.

Create the thread. Let's go!

 

[tosca1]

Again i disagree. The bible is not and has never been a book on the discussion of the environment. It is nothing more than deceit by theists to pretend that the book has some value in that talks about events or gives some kind of scientific examples of our world. A false way of justifying the bible through pseudo science.

If you label the National Acadamy of Sciences as "pseudo-science," then tell me, what science isn't?

Anyway....science got their own pseudo-scientists in the person of Richard Dawkins and his cohorts! So, to bring up pseudo science (if one believes the garbage being peddled by Dawkins), would be hypocritical.....or even, ignorant (since chances are they can't recognize it).

That some person looks at something and then merely gives a reason as to why it is so is not science, it is just guessing. It is strictly a book of parables meant to create a morality for the reader. And it does a really bad job of that as well.

This is again you being a weak atheist and trying to slip in a "let's try and make the bible into something it is not" act.

True, the Bible is not meant to be a science book, HOWEVER.......it is science, that's re-affirming some of the things written in the Bible!

Why shouldn't it be pointed out????
Just because the Bible isn't supposed to be a scientific book, therefore let's not talk about things that were stated by unsophisticated ancient men thousands of years ago that were later confirmed as facts by MODERN science, as recently as last century???

Big difference.

 

[tosca1]

It, the unification of all those theories presented in the BBC article, looks a lot better than goddidit. If you were honest, you'd admit that goddidit is the "spin bull.'

If you're honest, you'd admit that you're ignorant of what you're arguing about,

and admit you're deliberately closing your mind to sound rebuttals, because you're clouded by your anti-theist mentality!


God did it, is very well supported by FACTS, thank you very much.
Science does not eliminate it from the equation, either.


Unlike your drivel, and very much like evolution - which is nothing more but hypothesis riding on the back of
GROSS EXTRAPOLATION! And the only reason the silly hypothesis is being kept resuscitated, is due to the climate of secularism we now have. It's politicized!


"Comets rained down steadily," indeed - they'd say anything just so to push their narrative.
You're being fed bull by Sutherland and his team....and you can't even tell.

 

[Manc Skipper]

If you're honest, you'd admit that you're ignorant of what you're arguing about,

and admit you're deliberately closing your mind to sound rebuttals, because you're clouded by your anti-theist mentality!


God did it, is very well supported by FACTS, thank you very much. Science does not eliminate it from the equation, either.

Unlike your drivel, and very much like evolution - which is nothing more but hypothesis riding on the back of GROSS EXTRAPOLATION!

"Comets rained down steadily," indeed - they'd say anything just so to push their narrative.
You're being fed bull by Sutherland and his team....and you can't even tell.

"Goddidit" reflects magical thinking. Science represents reality.

 

[tosca1]

"Goddidit" reflects magical thinking. Science represents reality.

The same hogwash opinion rehashed. But of course....that's to be expected.
Consider my reply to Calamity, a reply to yours too.

Cookie-cutter opinion deserves the standard cookie-cutter response.

 

[Angelus]

The point is: science does not eliminate it!
In fact, if you read and understand what the NAS had stated - the possibility of creation exists!

So....I ask you again: on what basis do you stake your claim? NONE!

All you're spouting about is an opinion that stems from you anti-theistic stance!
You're blinded by bias.......that's why your argument is irrational.

Science doesn't eliminate anything - it simply explores and give the best answer than can be given at the time. The scientific method is a method of procedure, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

God is not a variable that can be tested, proven, or eliminated.

The bible originated as a tribal documentation (and this was long before the idea of historical accuracy) for a tribe of people who liked to wander and smite. Two thousand years ago - give or take - a new religion branched off that dealt with original sin, heaven, hell, and personal salvation - none of which were beliefs of that tribe. 300 years after that a group of bishops got together to decide which gospels would be used and which eliminated. This was the First and Second Councils of Nicaea

About 400 years after that, another group tacked on another religion. The only thing the last two seem to have agreed on is killing off the first group. No idea where god was in all of this.

 

[tosca1]

Science doesn't eliminate anything -

Well, science did more than not eliminate it!

The National Academy of Sciences also says:

"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience.


"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature.




"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html



Indeed,

it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

Theistic evolution - Creation of the universe by God - reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."



From that, to merely say that creation by God isn't off the table, would be an understatement!

 

[tosca1]

The idea that God made the world with certain special potency which would gradually unfold over time and develop - has been brought up by St Augustine 1500 years before Darwin!











If evolution did happen, it's literally a miracle and it's an evidence for the existence of God!


The Christian can follow the evidence where it leads.....

.......whereas for atheists/naturalist like Calamity, she can't. To her, the possibility of God cannot be considered at all.
She's trapped in that small box that excludes the possibility of the supernatural.

 

[Angelus]

Well, science did more than not eliminate it!



https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html



Indeed,

it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

Theistic evolution - Creation of the universe by God - reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."



From that, to merely say that creation by God isn't off the table, would be an understatement!

Nothing is off the table. Nothing is proven. There is no way to actually do an experiment using any variable of God.

However, there is evidence that prayer works, at least in some cases. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/

 

[tosca1]

Nothing is off the table. Nothing is proven. There is no way to actually do an experiment using any variable of God.

However, there is evidence that prayer works, at least in some cases. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/

Thus, the author of this thread holds a very limited viewpoint.
To be atheist or naturalist, she has to be close-minded as to exclude any possibility of the supernatural.

 

[calamity]

If you're honest, you'd admit that you're ignorant of what you're arguing about,

and admit you're deliberately closing your mind to sound rebuttals, because you're clouded by your anti-theist mentality!


God did it, is very well supported by FACTS, thank you very much.
Science does not eliminate it from the equation, either.


Unlike your drivel, and very much like evolution - which is nothing more but hypothesis riding on the back of
GROSS EXTRAPOLATION! And the only reason the silly hypothesis is being kept resuscitated, is due to the climate of secularism we now have. It's politicized!


"Comets rained down steadily," indeed - they'd say anything just so to push their narrative.
You're being fed bull by Sutherland and his team....and you can't even tell.

"Goddidit" is made up crap supported by words in an ancient book. Evolution is supported by fossil evidence and DNA analysis. Origin of life theories, although stilly very much evolving, are supported by sound logic and the observations during various experiments. Goddidit is both illogical and unsupported by observational evidence.

 

[calamity]

The idea that God made the world with certain special potency which would gradually unfold over time and develop - has been brought up by St Augustine 1500 years before Darwin!











If evolution did happen, it's literally a miracle and it's an evidence for the existence of God!


The Christian can follow the evidence where it leads.....

.......whereas for atheists/naturalist like Calamity, she can't. To her, the possibility of God cannot be considered at all.
She's trapped in that small box that excludes the possibility of the supernatural.

Evolution is not a "miracle." It's the result of flaws. Flaws in genetic reproduction and flaws in the stability of the earth and universe. Most mutations are negative and give rather ugly results like an early death or severe physical limitations. Same with earth's instability, which 5 or 6 times, resulted in the extinction of almost every living thing.

If killing of 99.99% of all species that ever lived so that 0.01% could now live is your god's miracle, dude sure sucks at miracles.

 

[tosca1]

Evolution is not a "miracle." It's the result of flaws. Flaws in genetic reproduction and flaws in the stability of the earth and universe. Most mutations are negative and give rather ugly results like an early death or severe physical limitations. Same with earth's instability, which 5 or 6 times, resulted in the extinction of almost every living thing.

If killing of 99.99% of all species that ever lived so that 0.01% could now live is your god's miracle, dude sure sucks at miracles.

:roll:


See? you don't understand what you read.

Your views are so limited to your belief.
How can we discuss rationally if you're going to force me to join you in your puny box, and ignore science........ and have it so that creation by God, is tabboo? :lol:

 

[calamity]

:roll:


See? you don't understand what you read.

Your views are so limited to your belief. How can we discuss rationally if you're going to force me to join you in your puny box, and ignore science........ and have it so that creation by God, is tabboo? :lol:

Creation by god is not taboo, it's just wrong.

 

[tosca1]

Creation by god is not taboo, it's just wrong.

Sorry Calamity. I won't engage your senseless opinion any further.
You remain stuck in your claustrophobic box, and rehash your cliche as much as you want - I'm moving on.

When it comes to rigorous discsusion about this, Calamity will always be left behind.

Left Behind. Hmmm....sounds like a sequel to Kirk Cameron movie.

Calamity, you can't venture out of that box. It's like someone with agoraphobia.
You can't come out in the open, and follow where the evidence leads.

 

[calamity]

Sorry Calamity. I won't engage your senseless opinion any further.
You remain stuck in your box and rehash your cliche as much as you want - I'm moving on.

When it comes to rigorous discsusion about this, Calamity will always be left behind. She can't venture out of that box. It's like someone with agoraphobia. She can't come out in the open, and follow where the evidence leads. :lol:

On this issue, the person "stuck in a box" is you, T. We know for a fact god did not make men and women different; sexual dimorphism is the result of evolution.

 

[tosca1]

So.....after all the drama and red herring from this thread's author........we come full circle.......
...........................with the conclusion of this thread:




If evolution indeed happen.......... it's because, God did it.