Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

real life wrote:

Either life originated by natural means.

Or it didn't.

Even though the list of possible natural means includes the unknown, right?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Either life originated by natural means.

Or it didn't.

Even though the list of possible natural means includes the unknown, right?

Sure.

Stating , 'I don't know how life originated, but it had to be by natural means' is not a third option. Just a variation on a theme.

Hope you are doing well this morning , Ros.

Had coffee yet?

0 Replies

ROS:
To be as pedantic as the idiots want us to be you first must PROVE the supernatural exisits before you can attribute anything to it. Which is, I believe, the point Setana keeps trying to make, over and over again.

0 Replies

Yes, RL..

but it still doesn't explain how disproving one possible natural explanation results in the answer must be 2.

Simple question for you..
If you can show evolution didn't occur does it prove that life as we know it didn't come about by natural means? Yes or no?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

But lets explore this a little bit more..
Miller-Urey used a DIFFERENT atmosphere. With the atmosphere that Miller-Urey used the oceans would NOT have been frozen.

Yeah no kidding.

Since Miller-Urey boiled water to produce steam as their supply of water vapor, their 'atmosphere' was in the neighborhood of 200+ degrees Fahrenheit. Laughing

Add to that the repeated electrical charges (you might get that number of lightning strikes in a row if you erected a large lightning rod, but certainly no group of random chemicals would draw that number of lighting bolts) and their fanciful scenario only lacks a laugh track to make a good run at an Emmy for best new comedy series.

(And that's before you get into the question of whether the atmosphere had the proper composition of chemicals or not. )

Just the obvious flaws alone in Miller-Urey are enough to warrant calling in the shredder for this piece of garbage.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Let's put in simpler terms. You allege we face a choice between a naturalistic explanation and the supernatural explanation.

Correct.

Setanta wrote:
I say there is no reason to believe that there is any such thing as "the supernatural" without evidence.

No prob. But pledging your allegiance to one of two choices doesn't mean there is a third.

Either life originated by natural means.

Or it didn't.

That is the dualistic crap you are peddling. Despite what Ros has said, absent any evidence that there is any other means than natural means, there is no reason to consider any other means. Unless and until you demonstrate that an explanation other than natural means is possible, we are limited to a discussion of natural means, and natural means only. Therefore:

Quote:

This is my 'dualistic' view that you sneered at.

It deserves nothing but sneers, because you don't provide any evidence. And, therefore:

Quote:

Prove it's wrong. Present options 3, and/ or 4, 5, 6 ...............

I'm under no obligation to prove you wrong--you are making the extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is one you. A philosophical thought exercise which posits one and two does not oblige anyone to accept that number two is possible without evidence, and you provide none.

This is not a question of me providing options three, etc., it is a matter of you providing evidence for option number two--you have not done so.

********************************

Ros, you are confusing a philosophical exercise with the evidence of reality. It is possible to conceive of something other than the natural world. That is not, however, evidence that anything other than the natural world exists. Without evidence, there is no reason for me to entertain "real life's" poofism, and upon that basis, i won't.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Sure.

Then proving evolution didn't happen just leaves an infinite number of other natural possibilities. So disproving evolution doesn't help your case, so why waste your time doing it. And why waste our time doing it as a response to us asking for you to give us EVIDENCE of creationism.

You can't provide scientific evidence for the supernatural in general, but you should be able to provide evidence of any of the physical aspects of creationism (Young Earth for example). Where's your evidence?

real life wrote:

Stating , 'I don't know how life originated, but it had to be by natural means' is not a third option. Just a variation on a theme.

If a magician does a trick, it was either real magic or it wasn't. So what. Just because you can't figure out the trick doesn't mean it was magic.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

If a magician does a trick, it was either real magic or it wasn't. So what. Just because you can't figure out the trick doesn't mean it was magic.

This is an important means to see how properly to look at this problem. "Magic" only exists to the extent that we cannot determine how something was accomplished--it ceases to be magic when the provenance is known.

The member "real life" is attempting to suggest that there is a dualistic dichotomy between the natural and "the supernatural." But there is no such dichotomy. As soon as the mechanism for an event can be described, it becomes a phenomenon of the natural world. To that extent, naturalistic explanations are the only explanations for objects or events in the cosmos--invoking "the supernatural" is simply an exercise which, whether intended or not, announces that the speaker doesn't know why something occurred, or how something came into existence.

It is important to "real life" to depict this as a dualistic dichotomy between the natural and "the supernatural," because so long as we argue on such a basis, we have admitted the validity of his dichotomy. But simply being able to imagine a dichotomy does not make it real, or even apparent. Absent any evidence for the supernatural, for "magic," for poofism, there is absolutely no reason to discuss it. Unless and until "real life" can demonstrate that his imaginary friend exists, and poofs things into existence, there is no reason to entertain such superstition in a discussion. As soon as he does, his imaginary friend becomes a demonstrable fact of the natural world, and the poofism becomes magic--an occurrence for which we cannot account through simple ignorance, not because it is magical.

0 Replies

It's really funny watching this thread; real supports creationism without any evidence, but continues to question evolution where proof/evidence exists by almost every scientific field known to man.

It takes a special kind of mind to refute evolution in this day and age; they are hopelessly lost in their religion.

0 Replies

C.I.
The real fun is watching two "religious" people get together and try to kill each other because their beliefs don't exactly coincide. Spendi is much more fun to deal with.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Simple question for you..
If you can show evolution didn't occur does it prove that life as we know it didn't come about by natural means? Yes or no?

No. This is just a strawman that Setanta trots out. Not something that I have proposed.

However, almost every evolutionist I have talked with insists that evolution is the ONLY natural explanation that has any support.

So if you consider it 'the only game in town', whacha gonna do when it's gone?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
Simple question for you..
If you can show evolution didn't occur does it prove that life as we know it didn't come about by natural means? Yes or no?

No. This is just a strawman that Setanta trots out. Not something that I have proposed.

However, almost every evolutionist I have talked with insists that evolution is the ONLY natural explanation that has any support.

So if you consider it 'the only game in town', whacha gonna do when it's gone?

So now you are denying your own statements again..

Followed by a claim about "every evolutionist" which again you will not be able to back up..

Followed by a statement that shows my statement is NOT a strawman but an accurate representation of your argument.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
Simple question for you..
If you can show evolution didn't occur does it prove that life as we know it didn't come about by natural means? Yes or no?

No. This is just a strawman that Setanta trots out. Not something that I have proposed.

However, almost every evolutionist I have talked with insists that evolution is the ONLY natural explanation that has any support.

So if you consider it 'the only game in town', whacha gonna do when it's gone?

So now you are denying your own statements again..

Would you like to show where I have made such a claim?

No, let me restate that.

I know you would LIKE to show where I have made such a claim, but you can't , can you?

parados wrote:

Followed by a claim about "every evolutionist" which again you will not be able to back up..

I cite only my limited experience, the evolutionists I have personally talked to. And even then I have made an exception. Do you know what 'almost' means?

parados wrote:

Followed by a statement that shows my statement is NOT a strawman but an accurate representation of your argument.

I asked 'if YOU agree', then what?

Perhaps you don't agree that evolution is 'the only game in town'.

If not, I'd love to hear what you do think is an alternate possibility.

But I suspect you actually DO think that evolution is the only possibility.

You probably just don't like the uncomfortable position that puts you in.

I don't blame you for that. Laughing

0 Replies

real: You probably just don't like the uncomfortable position that puts you in.

ROFLMAO

0 Replies

parados,

btw haven't seen your response on Miller-Urey yet.

You done defending maporsche's contention that Miller-Urey used 'conditions that existed on the early earth' ?

Laughing

0 Replies

Yea come on Parados, you have to admit Real Lie PROVED to you that the Earth 3 billion years ago was covered in ice. 2,999,994,000 years BEFORE it was created!

0 Replies

real life wrote:

No. This is just a strawman that Setanta trots out. Not something that I have proposed.

This entails no strawman. I've not stated that this were your position, and neither has Parados. Both of us have asked you what you intend by asserting that a theory of evolution is invalid. Your implicit position has been that the inability to support a theory of evolution by default leaves only your imaginary friend/poofism thesis--we are asking you whether or not you would explicitly state as much.

A strawman argument only occurs when someone says that your position is something which it is not, and then argues against the false characterization.

However, you have proposed a dualistic condition, a dichotomy in which either life has a naturalistic origin, or it does not. So both i (repeatedly, in many places, for years) and Parados are asking if you intend to assert that "disproving" evolution constitutes proof for your poofism. You don't answer that question, because it is implicit in the world view of the bible thumpers, and your only interest here is to provide glib arguments for bible thumpers.

If you actually have a logical process in mind which begins with a refutation of a theory of evolution, and proceeds to another position which you are prepared to argue, tell us what it is. That is what Parados is asking for, and that is what i've been asking you for.

I doubt that you'll directly respond, though, because you have a track record of avoiding direct answers to direct questions.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Then proving evolution didn't happen just leaves an infinite number of other natural possibilities.

Like what?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Then proving evolution didn't happen just leaves an infinite number of other natural possibilities.

Like what?

Poofism.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados,

btw haven't seen your response on Miller-Urey yet.

You done defending maporsche's contention that Miller-Urey used 'conditions that existed on the early earth' ?

How Miller-Urey created their atmosphere isn't really an issue. They probably put out pans of liquid ammonia but we both know there were no pans 3 billion years ago.
Rolling Eyes

Look up vulcanism before you claim that water couldn't boil 3 billion years ago.

The US geological survey has some great information on the gases put out be volcanoes. Water vapor being a primary one. Are you going to claim an early earth was less active volcanically?

But since you want to talk about LACK of response..
lets see..
Your definition of "evolutionist"
Your strawman where you used "evolutionist" and then tried to claim it doesn't include me.
Your claim you didn't say something after you claimed you said it all the time. (Evolution violates the 2nd law.)
Your failure to respond to the mathematical proof how evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law.
Your claim that we shouldn't include energy transfer in calculations of entropy.
Your claim that others misuse the 2nd law when they do include energy transfer even though it is part of the mathematical equation.
Your continued attempt to change the subject from the above.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know