Evolutionry/religious nonsense

I was giving him the option of a natural intelligence rather than a supernatural intelligence to start a conversation since he doesn’t seem to believe in dualism. Logic discussion would have lead to your point i would think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis Also: http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/10/earths-beginnings-origins-life/

so, according to that logic, something intelligent"layed out" ingredients that were poofed into life.
Did you ever consider that because life seems to have had at least three "false starts" with approximately the same ingredients displayed in the fossil record, it resulted in a very few simple models of content? It included jut respiration/nutrient uptake and evacuation ; reproduction; cell wall structure as a protective container; and storage and transfer of data about the previous three) and each of these "tool" kits responded uniquely based on a given environment .

Your arguments go beyond an intelligence, they lean on an omnipotent being, hence, you default to some kind of spiritual being which science has neither, an ability to disprove (AND you have no mans to prove), and science further, has no rel interest in such a default because it stymies all kind of discovery and really wastes a lot of time.

From your link.


Get this through your head CI - At this time, NO ONE knows how life started.

But they have plenty of strong clues.

Apparently, the god squad has not yet realized that the origin of life is irrelevant in a discussion of evolution. Which is why "religious nonsense" in the title of the thread is appropriate.

That's true. Evolution is happening all the time, and scientists are recording the changes as it happens. The biggie today is global warming, and how it affects life on earth.

you mean, ITS NOT ALL ABOUT US????

By the way, they've found a huge meteor crater in the sediments beneath the continental ice sheet of Antarctica, That was older news but the new tickle is that the seismic waves that were propagated by the impact, Converged at Upper Siberia possibly being the cause of the large basalt "traps" that defined the Permian Extinction. Is every "great Dying" due, somehow to an impact?

What about the Chesapeake bolide that slammed into the lower Chesapeake about 36 my ago

I thought it was the climate changes and meteor impacts.

And Set et al has not yet realized that without abiogenesis, evolution is irrelevant.

No religious nonsense is involved in that fact.

Strong? - I'd expect experimental support if that were true.

I do like following clues though. But the 'Life Is Natural' club tosses any they don't like into the "religious nonsense" bin.

Shows you have your mind made up to the negative no matter what science comes up with.

Is there an ID guys research club???. You guys only try to latch on to well thought out evidence and you cherry pick mini points without trying to understand the entire story. Kinda elementary school science in my mind.

Wheres all this " evidentiary support" and floods of technical papers that the ID crowd has been promising us since 2001??

Science keeps moving along now with a "big data" approach matching environmental and mineralogical data with the fossil record, and the plotting of genetic cladistics is just fascinating.


Read some of the work by Bob Hazen or Sean Carroll.

Thats a damned lie based on worldview bias. When science discovers something that doesnt seem to fit, we hqve a ball picking it apart and even changing theories where its needed. You guy stay right on the GOD DIDIT path.

Insult gets you nowhere because facts are our best argument. If you dont understand how science works, dont try to bluff what aint so.

I spent lotsa time explaining to you guys (Waay more than once), how falsifiability has been used to direct the discovery of key element of environmental control of evolution, an lab experiments have shown the stages of evolutionary derived phenotypes , in living species are actually reversible into earlier "parent" forms and how , by understanding same, and pairing that off with the paleo-sedimentalogical record, we see how common ancestors hve been affected by changes in the mega environment as well as providing some geographical isolation.

total bullshit again. As st patiently stated to you "ALL ORIGINS OF LIFE ARE ESSENTIALLY ABIOGENESIS", did you just wait long enough before responding so you wouldnt have to deal with that observation??

I thought it was a pretty damn good point. .

What I don't understand is how people can rely on a 2000 year old book full of errors and contradictions, and try to force their religious' beliefs about nature to the world. Primarily because science provides the best theory about our life and environment that is based on evidence. The bible is based on faith. Faith is belief based on nothing more than hope.

As FM has pointed out, I have pointed out more than once that any origin of life, even if it is your magic sky daddy, is abiogenesis. Thomas Huxley coined the word abiogenesis in 1859 or 1860, to describe life arising from non-living material. It was a good debating point at the time, when he was taking on Wilberforce--but is is still irrelevant. Any origin of life involves no life and then life arising from non-living elements. Pay attention, and try to keep up.

True, true but irrelevant.
The argument is about the likelyhood of that happening by chance.

You worship at the alter of science so eventually you need to drop the 'magic/invisible sky daddy' schtic. You believe in as many or more of those than I do. Just examples - dark matter and dark energy that we can't see or detect in any way but yet you believe in it. The evidence for ID is at least as strong as for them.

In the first place, you have attempted to move the goal posts in a futile attempt to salvage your feeble argument. In the second place, I do not worship at any altar (learn to spell the word). Finally, you have no idea what I do or do not "believe in." Dark matter was an hypothesis, nothing more. To the extent that it would have explained the data, it was given consideration by the scientific community. That is a far cry from alleging what one does or does not believe in. I always recognized that I lacked the expertise and the knowledge of physic to judge the plausibility of that hypothesis. So you are employing a straw man fallacy. Have fun with that; let me know how that works out for you.