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

Come on ROS. Admit Real Lie has got you there; if you can't come up with another natural explanation it proves the supernatural. Same as if in ancient Greece you said that lightening bolts weren't retribution from the God Zeus but must be a natural phenomena and since no one yet knew the principles of electricity so you couldn't come up with the plausible and natural explanation (which of course turned out to be correct) it would prove lightning bolts WERE retribution form the God Zeus.

0 Replies

Setanta 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.

This entails no strawman. I've not stated that this were your position

from http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=86967&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=2090

Setanta wrote:

The member "real life" operates on an assumption that all he need do is cast doubt on a theory of evolution, and he will have succeeded in "proving" a theistic creation

0 Replies

parados wrote:

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.

parados wrote:

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

Strawman.

Really poor one. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

So what was your argument then when you said Miller "boiled" water to create their "atmosphere?"

If you were not complaining about HOW the water vapor was put in the air by Miller then clarify what your complaint was.

Volcanoes put out water vapor as steam.
The air around a volcano is heated by the steam of the water vapor.

So which didn't exist 3 billion years ago? Volcanoes? Steam? boiling water? Air heated by steam?

0 Replies

It's not a strawman if it's true.

Miller-Urey did boil water to produce the steam for their atmosphere.

The temp of the Miller-Urey 'atmosphere' was in the range of 200+ degrees Fahrenheit.

Do you think this is a good approximation of the temperature of the early earth's atmosphere?

Or are you simply hoping that if numerous lightning strikes (how many electrical charges did Miller-Urey use?) occurred in the very close proximity to an erupting volcano (your proposed source for water vapor) that some steam from the volcano (combining with other chemicals) might be converted to a few rudimentary amino acids , and that life OBVIOUSLY would easily assemble itself after that? Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

It's not a strawman if it's true.

Miller-Urey did boil water to produce the steam for their atmosphere.

So? They had to find some way to put water vapor into their "atmosphere." The method they used is immaterial.

Quote:

The temp of the Miller-Urey 'atmosphere' was in the range of 200+ degrees Fahrenheit.

Do you think this is a good approximation of the temperature of the early earth's atmosphere?

Do you have evidence its not?

Quote:

Or are you simply hoping that if numerous lightning strikes (how many electrical charges did Miller-Urey use?) occurred in the very close proximity to an erupting volcano (your proposed source for water vapor)

One proposed source for water vapor, I proposed others that you have since ignored. An erupting volcano sends gases and steam into the air. The gases and steam DO NOT stay around the volcano. They are sent high into the atmosphere and can be measured around the globe in a very short time.

Quote:

that some steam from the volcano (combining with other chemicals) might be converted to a few rudimentary amino acids , and that life OBVIOUSLY would easily assemble itself after that?

Are you aware of how much heat lightning itself creates? You can be sure Miller's experiment didn't heat up the air nearly as much as a single lightning bolt can. The air around a lightning bolt can be heated to 60,000 degrees. Hmm.. And you want to complain 200 degrees was too hot.

0 Replies

So did all of these amino acids (formed by lightning) fall from high in the atmosphere into the same square foot of mud, and so have an opportunity to combine themselves , (of their own accord) , into the first self replicating molecule?

Or did they meet thru an amino dating service and have to travel a distance to get acquainted?

It is no wonder that Shapiro thought it beyond the realm of likelihood for first life to be of the 'replicator first' variety. Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

So did all of these amino acids (formed by lightning) fall from high in the atmosphere into the same square foot of mud, and so have an opportunity to combine themselves , (of their own accord) , into the first self replicating molecule?

Or did they meet thru an amino dating service and have to travel a distance to get acquainted?

It is no wonder that Shapiro thought it beyond the realm of likelihood for first life to be of the 'replicator first' variety.

Strawman. No one is claiming what you are claiming.

The interesting part about the experiment, as I've said, is ORGANIC material from IN-ORGANIC material. The method used in immaterial at this early stage of our understanding. The possibility is intriguing.

Real Lie, are you among those who believe that everything that CAN be discovered HAS been discovered?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

So did all of these amino acids (formed by lightning) fall from high in the atmosphere into the same square foot of mud, and so have an opportunity to combine themselves , (of their own accord) , into the first self replicating molecule?

Or did they meet thru an amino dating service and have to travel a distance to get acquainted?

It is no wonder that Shapiro thought it beyond the realm of likelihood for first life to be of the 'replicator first' variety.

So now you are implying that Shapiro thinks the oceans were frozen..
Rolling Eyes

You have provided no evidence of what the atmosphere was 3 billion years ago.

0 Replies

But we can add to the long list of things you have failed to address at this point..

You have now failed to address the OTHER ways water vapor can enter the atmosphere.
You have failed to address you have no evidence that the oceans were frozen because you have not presented any evidence of the atmosphere 3 billion years ago.
You have failed to address how a possibility in "IF the atmosphere was the same" has become your statements about how the ocean was frozen.

0 Replies

maporsche, you might want to tune up your sarcasm detector a bit. Cool

but seriously, is the production of amino acids high in the atmosphere the best that is out there?

how do you suppose that this gets you anywhere close to DNA?

having one amino acid land in the Rockies and one fall near the Mississippi and another touch down in the Alleghenies doesn't really hold much promise , I would suppose.............

gotta be able to get them all together, yes?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
So did all of these amino acids (formed by lightning) fall from high in the atmosphere into the same square foot of mud, and so have an opportunity to combine themselves , (of their own accord) , into the first self replicating molecule?

Or did they meet thru an amino dating service and have to travel a distance to get acquainted?

It is no wonder that Shapiro thought it beyond the realm of likelihood for first life to be of the 'replicator first' variety.

So now you are implying that Shapiro thinks the oceans were frozen..

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Come on ROS. Admit Real Lie has got you there; if you can't come up with another natural explanation it proves the supernatural. Same as if in ancient Greece you said that lightening bolts weren't retribution from the God Zeus but must be a natural phenomena and since no one yet knew the principles of electricity so you couldn't come up with the plausible and natural explanation (which of course turned out to be correct) it would prove lightning bolts WERE retribution form the God Zeus.

This is the sort of phony "logic" upon which "real life" relies. If Ros cannot come up with a different naturalistic explanation, that doesn't prove anything other than that Ros cannot come up with a different naturalistic explanation. You're doing exactly what "real life" wants someone to do, to articulate his implicit (but never explicitly stated) thesis that the failure of science to explain something by default authorizes his poofism explanation. He won't come out and say it directly, though, because he knows that it is not logically founded. He never intends to enter the lists with any evidence for supernaturalism, he simply intends to imply that it is the only alternative if science is proven wrong, something he actually has the hubris and ignorace to assume he can do.

Shame on you.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta 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.

This entails no strawman. I've not stated that this were your position

from http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=86967&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=2090

Setanta wrote:
The member "real life" operates on an assumption that all he need do is cast doubt on a theory of evolution, and he will have succeeded in "proving" a theistic creation

You're lying again, "real life." Apart from the fact that the link you have provided does not take one to a post of mine (sloppy work, that), the passage which you have quoted does not state what you claim it does. I have not said that you would say that if evolution were "disproven," that it would constitute evidence that life did not arise by natural means. I have stated that you intend to cast doubt in order to imply a theistic creation--i've not said that you need disprove it, simply that you wish to cast doubt. From that, your intent is to imply that therefore your poofism is the only remaining answer.

Sloppy work all around, and so typical of you. I've been very careful, in fact, to point out that you are unwilling to directly answer such questions, or to explicitly state such a position, because you know you'd not have a leg to stand on. Therefore, no strawman is involved.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
So did all of these amino acids (formed by lightning) fall from high in the atmosphere into the same square foot of mud, and so have an opportunity to combine themselves , (of their own accord) , into the first self replicating molecule?

Or did they meet thru an amino dating service and have to travel a distance to get acquainted?

It is no wonder that Shapiro thought it beyond the realm of likelihood for first life to be of the 'replicator first' variety.

So now you are implying that Shapiro thinks the oceans were frozen..

Since you have been arguing that the oceans were frozen I can only assume you mean there is one small puddle while the rest of the world is frozen. To claim Shapiro thinks this because of one small puddle is to imply he thinks the oceans were frozen.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
Come on ROS. Admit Real Lie has got you there; if you can't come up with another natural explanation it proves the supernatural. Same as if in ancient Greece you said that lightening bolts weren't retribution from the God Zeus but must be a natural phenomena and since no one yet knew the principles of electricity so you couldn't come up with the plausible and natural explanation (which of course turned out to be correct) it would prove lightning bolts WERE retribution form the God Zeus.

This is the sort of phony "logic" upon which "real life" relies. If Ros cannot come up with a different naturalistic explanation, that doesn't prove anything other than that Ros cannot come up with a different naturalistic explanation. You're doing exactly what "real life" wants someone to do, to articulate his implicit (but never explicitly stated) thesis that the failure of science to explain something by default authorizes his poofism explanation. He won't come out and say it directly, though, because he knows that it is not logically founded. He never intends to enter the lists with any evidence for supernaturalism, he simply intends to imply that it is the only alternative if science is proven wrong, something he actually has the hubris and ignorace to assume he can do.

Shame on you.

I think TCR's post was meant to be facetious or ironic.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
So did all of these amino acids (formed by lightning) fall from high in the atmosphere into the same square foot of mud, and so have an opportunity to combine themselves , (of their own accord) , into the first self replicating molecule?

Or did they meet thru an amino dating service and have to travel a distance to get acquainted?

It is no wonder that Shapiro thought it beyond the realm of likelihood for first life to be of the 'replicator first' variety.

So now you are implying that Shapiro thinks the oceans were frozen..

Since you have been arguing that the oceans were frozen I can only assume you mean there is one small puddle while the rest of the world is frozen. To claim Shapiro thinks this because of one small puddle is to imply he thinks the oceans were frozen.

Shapiro simply said that the likelihood of a replicator molecule assembling itself was so remote as to be near worthless in pursuing seriously.

If you are using Miller-Urey to bolster your hope that amino acids formed high in the atmosphere due to lightning, then you also need to explain how the amino acids, (once formed), managed to land in the same place and combine into a replicator , instead of being scattered over half a continent (the more likely scenario).

I said nothing of Shapiro in regard to the Faint Sun discussion we had earlier. He didn't mention it and I didn't imply he did.

But you're running out of locations for your replicator to be formed 3 billion years ago.

Where did it happen?

In the atmosphere? Laughing

On a planet where most or all of the surface water is frozen?

Some folks have pinned their hopes on deep sea vents, but then you don't have the lightning bolts available , do you?

So , be specific. WHERE do you think the first replicator originated, parados?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I've been very careful, in fact, to point out that you are unwilling to directly answer such questions, or to explicitly state such a position, because you know you'd not have a leg to stand on. Therefore, no strawman is involved.

Why would I state such a position when it's not my position?

You have on many occasions implied that it was,

Setanta, answering TCR wrote:

You're doing exactly what "real life" wants someone to do, to articulate his implicit (but never explicitly stated) thesis that the failure of science to explain something by default authorizes his poofism explanation.

and thus it is a manufacture of your own imaginations.

It's a strawman.

Now if you think there are other plausible natural explanations besides evolution, let's hear them.

Otherwise, if evolution is the 'only game in town' in your view, then all the other blathering you've done implying otherwise is hot air.

0 Replies

ROS and Setana:
Yes my comment was firmly tongue-in-cheek.

Even better. It Turns out Baddog1 is a mechanical engineer, as he told me in another post. So now we can get some standard verifiable answers to these ridiculous statements that come are supported by Peer-Review journals not born again web sites! And we know that he must understand basic science so it will be easy to tell when he is just, "taking the piss" as spendi likes to say.

I am busy working today but will take time this weekend to make up some questions. Who knows Patient Parados might even learn why the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong, or how it refutes evolution, or how evolution is statistically impossible. Backed up by real sources! I don't know about you guys but I can hardly wait. See you all tomorrow.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

I am busy working today but will take time this weekend to make up some questions.

Think hard. Laughing

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know