The origin of life: Cell membranes.

[Cisco Qid]

A totally ridiculous argument. Without gravity there is no ballet. We have no complete explanation of gravity. Does this make ballet impossible? Nor does it seek to do so, since how life came to be doesn't affect how evolution operates, since as you point out, evolution works on already existing life forms. Building a bridge uses already existing building materials. The architects plans don't have to show where the iron ore for the girders is to be mined.

Except that you are not attempting to explain the existence of the bridge or how it came about. We know how it came about, it was intelligently designed. If someone were to make the claim that it came about by natural processes, that someone would need to explain how the iron ore for the girders were mined and got to that location. The same illogical reasoning applies to your ballet which is an attempt to dance around the subject.

Yep, except, as has been shown, the dichotomy is not false.

The only thing that has been shown is the extent of foolishness that secularists will go in an attempt to defend their pet theory.

Methinks you misunderstand what the Cambrian explosion was. It isn't a sudden emergence of life forms, but a sudden increase in the number of fossilised forms. Caused by the development of hard body parts which fossilised more easily. Fossils pre-date the Cambrian by some distance.

The Cambrian explosion is even demonstrated in shale along side soft bodied fossils so your argument holds no water. And the only other higher form fossils are from the Ediacaran which have no ancestors and whose organisms did not survive into proceeding Cambrian period. Other than that all you have are fossilized microbes that date back about 3 billion years.

This is simply untrue.

You statement is simply untrue.

This too, is simply untrue. The distinction between macro evolution which a few cannot accept for doctrinal reasons, and microevolution, which they are forced to accept since it has been documented and observed, is entirely artificial.

This too, is simply untrue. And making proclamations that go along the lines of accusations is a logical fallacy.

 

[DaGeo]

Evolution does not deny knowledge of an omnipotent, omniscient God. Intelligent Design does.

An omnipotent, omniscient God can set up the laws of the universe and the initial state of the universe so that exactly the desired outcome will happen at some time in the future, and value of "time in the future" being 0% of the lifetime of God.

Intelligent Design denies an omnipotent omniscient God, instead insisting that a Designer has to intervene at some points in time to ensure that the correct outcome happens. That is like a pool player having to redirect the cue ball after he has taken his shot.

Please review your posted opinions and check for internal consistency.

Intelligent Design either denies that God is omnipotent or that God is omniscient, or both.

Twice earlier you declared ID does both. Now you’re hedging, (otherwise known as equivocating).

Does ID do one or the other or both?? When you make up you mind get back to me

 

[Cisco Qid]

Right. It fell into disuse by an early primate. All descendant species then had a broken gene for vitamin C synthesis - and all broken inthe same way. Some other clades also have a broken gene, but broken in a different way.

All strong evidence for common descent and macroevolution. Meanwhile ID has "I have no idea"...

The concept of the broken gene is following along the same path as the "junk DNA" argument. To Darwinists the broken gene or psuedogene is just another piece of discarded DNA sequence that is now junk and serves no useful purpose while ID proponents still maintain that useful function will be found for psuedogenes with further research and that useful function will be found for turning the gene off. I already gave an example of the human en utero where the GULO gene appears to function during a time when the embryo is unable to ingest Vitamin C. Another example is the beta-blogin pseudogene which was an icon of evolution and now has evidence of function. It will be interesting to watch the Darwinist' posturing as did happen after the ENCODE project.

All three genomes were examine, and they found chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. So far so good.

The issue then is how each theory explains that. Evolution say it is because chimps have a more recent common ancestor with humans than with gorillas. What has ID got? Same as with the vitamin C pseudogene?

What you want to pass off as an explanation is an after-the-fact hypothesis. Chimps have a more recent ancestor is not an explanation but rather an expounding of genetic results. Up until that time the gorilla was postulated as the more recent.

But in spite of all this bickering about common ancestry, I still hold the the scriptures are inspired and more true than we could ever imagine.

 

[rossum]

Please review your posted opinions and check for internal consistency.

Twice earlier you declared ID does both. Now you’re hedging, (otherwise known as equivocating).

ID is not my opinion. I am merely pointing out one of its implications.

Does ID do one or the other or both?? When you make up you mind get back to me

In order to answer that I need more information on the ID position. Could you please clarify if ID says that the initial conditions of the universe were set up incorrectly; if the laws of the universe were set up incorrectly, or if both were set up incorrectly.

 

[The Pixie]

The concept of the broken gene is following along the same path as the "junk DNA" argument. To Darwinists the broken gene or psuedogene is just another piece of discarded DNA sequence that is now junk and serves no useful purpose while ID proponents still maintain that useful function will be found for psuedogenes with further research and that useful function will be found for turning the gene off. I already gave an example of the human en utero where the GULO gene appears to function during a time when the embryo is unable to ingest Vitamin C. Another example is the beta-blogin pseudogene which was an icon of evolution and now has evidence of function. It will be interesting to watch the Darwinist' posturing as did happen after the ENCODE project.

So your explanation depends on finding something in the future. And yet you are still peddling a lack of fossils as an argument for ID. Interesting.

What you want to pass off as an explanation is an after-the-fact hypothesis. Chimps have a more recent ancestor is not an explanation but rather an expounding of genetic results. Up until that time the gorilla was postulated as the more recent.

An after-the-fact hypothesis can still be an explanation.

And ID does not have one.

But in spite of all this bickering about common ancestry, I still hold the the scriptures are inspired and more true than we could ever imagine.

Sure. I have repeatedly pointed out that creationists will ignore evidence in favour of scripture. I will stick with science,

 

[DaGeo]

ID is not my opinion. I am merely pointing out one of its implications.

Nice dodge, but it’s burning oil AND oh no, the tires are flat too

In order to answer that I need more information on the ID position. Could you please clarify if ID says that the initial conditions of the universe were set up incorrectly; if the laws of the universe were set up incorrectly, or if both were set up incorrectly.

I’m just so flattered that you have requested my assistance in helping you formulate your position.
But—this could become habit forming for you and I wouldn’t want you to become too dependent.
So, for your own benefit, you need to do your own research. Then you can proudly proclaim to others that you did it all by yourself!

 

[rossum]

I’m just so flattered that you have requested my assistance in helping you formulate your position.
But—this could become habit forming for you and I wouldn’t want you to become too dependent.
So, for your own benefit, you need to do your own research. Then you can proudly proclaim to others that you did it all by yourself!

Thank you for confirming that you cannot answer my questions about ID.

 

[DaGeo]

Thank you for confirming that you cannot answer my questions about ID.

Another stalled dodge.
Let me help.
You can’t fix a loud muffler by removing the engine.
Perhaps you might apply that same principle to your belief in the myth of evolution

 

[rossum]

Let me help.

By all means. You can help by answering my questions:

In order to answer that I need more information on the ID position. Could you please clarify if ID says that the initial conditions of the universe were set up incorrectly; if the laws of the universe were set up incorrectly, or if both were set up incorrectly.

See my post #324 above.

 

[Temujin]

Thank you for confirming that you cannot answer my questions about ID.

He cannot answer any questions on any subject. To do so would irreparably damage his self-esteem. How do you think he has managed to ratchet it up so high?

 

[DaGeo]

He cannot answer any questions on any subject. To do so would irreparably damage his self-esteem. How do you think he has managed to ratchet it up so high?

You still don’t understand why I’m here. Maybe I’ll wave another clue right under your nose. Are ya ready I just plain like helping wanna be atheists understand themselves and what they believe. I do that in various ways. Sometimes I do it by pointing out reasoning errors. It’s a booming business ?

 

[Temujin]

You still don’t understand why I’m here. Maybe I’ll wave another clue right under your nose. Are ya ready I just plain like helping wanna be atheists understand themselves and what they believe. I do that in various ways. Sometimes I do it by pointing out reasoning errors. It’s a booming business ?

And yet here you are, mocking and scoring, but you have failed to criticise a single aspect of evolution, let alone provided any evidence for why it should be abandoned as a theory. You are welcome to do so at any point. Anything substantive you say, or question you ask will be treated with the respect with which you say or ask it. I know that you can behave like an adult, if only in short bursts, so why not gird your loins, surprise us all and ask a civil question which you believe undermines evolution. A challenge for you! I know you like them.

 

[Temujin]

Except that you are not attempting to explain the existence of the bridge or how it came about. We know how it came about, it was intelligently designed. If someone were to make the claim that it came about by natural processes, that someone would need to explain how the iron ore for the girders were mined and got to that location. The same illogical reasoning applies to your ballet which is an attempt to dance around the subject.

The only thing that has been shown is the extent of foolishness that secularists will go in an attempt to defend their pet theory.

The Cambrian explosion is even demonstrated in shale along side soft bodied fossils so your argument holds no water. And the only other higher form fossils are from the Ediacaran which have no ancestors and whose organisms did not survive into proceeding Cambrian period. Other than that all you have are fossilized microbes that date back about 3 billion years.

You statement is simply untrue.

This too, is simply untrue. And making proclamations that go along the lines of accusations is a logical fallacy.

Wrong. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301926816303813

20 seconds of Google. Hundreds more sites, giving lots more examples.

The main point: New fauna reveals a less abrupt faunal change at the Pc–C boundary than thought.

You are basing your ideas on out of date data. Chasing after the God of the gaps is a mug's game.

 

[Cisco Qid]

Wrong. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301926816303813

20 seconds of Google. Hundreds more sites, giving lots more examples.

The main point: New fauna reveals a less abrupt faunal change at the Pc–C boundary than thought.

You are basing your ideas on out of date data. Chasing after the God of the gaps is a mug's game.

Wrong is an awfully strong word for someone who just discovered that a few fossilized fauna survived into the Cambrian period. You do realize that fauna are plants don't you?

 

[Temujin]

Wrong is an awfully strong word for someone who just discovered that a few fossilized fauna survived into the Cambrian period. You do realize that fauna are plants don't you?

Lol! You do realise that fauna are animals don't you? Flora are plants. My six years old grandson knows that. Wrong is a very mild word to use against such ignorance as you display here. And you pose as some sort of expert.?

 

[DaGeo]

And yet here you are, mocking and scoring, but you have failed to criticise a single aspect of evolution, let alone provided any evidence for why it should be abandoned as a theory. You are welcome to do so at any point. Anything substantive you say, or question you ask will be treated with the respect with which you say or ask it. I know that you can behave like an adult, if only in short bursts, so why not gird your loins, surprise us all and ask a civil question which you believe undermines evolution. A challenge for you! I know you like them.

You’ve hardly provided anything requiring more than a few short burst responses. In fact that’s all it takes to send you reeling.

You don’t even know how to assemble a convincing argument and I’m supposed to take you seriously
Apparently what you believe is not all that compelling even for you

There’s your healthy short bursts for the day?

 

[Temujin]

You’ve hardly provided anything requiring more than a few short burst responses. In fact that’s all it takes to send you reeling.

You don’t even know how to assemble a convincing argument and I’m supposed to take you seriously
Apparently what you believe is not all that compelling even for you

There’s your healthy short bursts for the day?

So when do you intend to start? Your substantive question challenging evolution is....?

 

[Cisco Qid]

Lol! You do realise that fauna are animals don't you? Flora are plants. My six years old grandson knows that. Wrong is a very mild word to use against such ignorance as you display here. And you pose as some sort of expert.?

I realized that after I posted it. Unfortunately, it would not allowed me to reedit the post. But it is interesting to observe the response. And I am no expert.

 

[DaGeo]

So when do you intend to start? Your substantive question challenging evolution is....?

At loss of words Why don’t you declare idea bankruptcy ????

 

[Temujin]

At loss of words Why don’t you declare idea bankruptcy ????

OK. You are bankrupt of ideas.