Moderator: Moderators
That's easy, life could arise not from an iterative process from simple chemical, while still evolve via mutation and natural selection after it arise from some other means.For_The_Kingdom wrote: Please explain how on the naturalistic worldview, abiogenesis can be false, and evolution be true.
That's still begging the question. How can you tell there can't possibly be mechanism in nature that will allow life "force" to come into existence.Because there is no mechanism in nature that will allow the life "force" to come into existence.
Not yet I can't, but how can you rule out technologic advances in future that could do it? Scientist can already reassemble/recreate/manufacture (or whatever term you want to use) living cells from non-living matter, that's more than enough to prove that "life force" is just a special kind of chemistry.That is no different than trying to make all of the furniture in your house "come to life". Where will you get the "life" from to embed it into those material objects? You can't do it.
It had to? How do you know? B->A, but how do you know B? C->B, but how do you know C? D->C, but why D... and so on.It is the same way with organisms. The "life" had to come from something exterior to it. It had to come from the exterior, not the interior.
Said arguments are question begging. They all boil down to an uncaused cause is necessary because infinite regression is impossible, but you cannot presume infinite regression is impossible in an argument for an uncaused cause.Because of the arguments against infinite regression. An uncaused cause is necessary.
Remember, I said that evolution is basically the premise that reptiles evovled into birds. Your above response is "that is not what evolution says".Bust Nak wrote: I don't see how this illustration is supposed to be helping, it's still going to bring forth the "see, you don't even know what evolution is" or "but that's not what evolution says" because frankly that is not what evolution says.
Was the archaeopteryx an individual, or a population?Bust Nak wrote: Have you considered the alternative that your have the concept wrong? Individual organism does not evolve, populations evolve.
Um, "macroevolution" is used to describe the TYPE of change that is occuring...and the reptile-bird thing would be an example of such a "MACRO" change.Bust Nak wrote: See? You don't even know what macro evolution is. An ancient species of "reptile" to modern birds can be explained without evoking macro evolution. Linear changes one generation to the next is enough.
That is completely wrong.Bust Nak wrote: See? You don't even know what micro evolution is. Different varieties of dogs is macro evolution. That is splitting one branch into two, as opposed to the linear changes above.
This is all bio-babble. No matter how you want to define it, I am saying it doesn't occur. I am saying that reptile never evolved into a bird, no matter how yo define it, classify it, explain it, believe it.Bust Nak wrote: You have been mislead by the "creationists think tank" into believing macro necessarily mean big changes and micro necessarily mean small changes; when the actual distinction is micro means linear path no matter how large a change, and macro means splitting path no matter how small a change.
Irrelevant.Bust Nak wrote: An analogy: Me and my friend walking from Paris to Istanbul, then to Mumbai and finally to Beijing, that's "micro" movement even we travelled ten thousand miles from our starting point. On the other hand, me walking to the post office while my friend walks in another direction to the grocery store, that's "macro" movement even though the trips only took us 15 minutes, because my friend and I split path and ends up in two separate locations.
Evolutionists too, are sometimes guilty for playing to creationists' terms, rather than hammering this point home at every opportunity.
Makes no sense. Even atheists agree that life is finite, and if God doesn't exist, there is no way to explain the origins of finite life, if not from nonliving material.Bust Nak wrote: That's easy, life could arise not from an iterative process from simple chemical, while still evolve via mutation and natural selection after it arise from some other means.
Because life, just like consciousness, are immaterial constructs. And immaterial constructs cannot naturally originate from matter. That would be like if you had all the matter in the world at your disposal, and trying to use all of that matter to construct a spirit. You can't do it.Bust Nak wrote: That's still begging the question. How can you tell there can't possibly be mechanism in nature that will allow life "force" to come into existence.
I will consider "future advances in technology" that will allow furniture to "come to life", when you consider the "future return of Jesus" that will "allow all believers to rise to eternal life".Bust Nak wrote: Not yet I can't, but how can you rule out technologic advances in future that could do it?
Um, no they don't and no they haven't. The closest they've come was the Miller-Urey experiment at which a few amino acids were created, but even then, they were a longgggg away from life, buddy. It ain't happening.Bust Nak wrote: Scientist can already reassemble/recreate/manufacture (or whatever term you want to use) living cells from non-living matter, that's more than enough to prove that "life force" is just a special kind of chemistry.
Would you believe that every time you leave your house, all of the furniture inside begins to talk, move around, laugh, and play?Bust Nak wrote: It had to? How do you know? B->A, but how do you know B? C->B, but how do you know C? D->C, but why D... and so on.
Infinite regression is can be disproven with ease, and once such an absurd notion is negated, an uncaused cause is the only game left in town.Bust Nak wrote: Said arguments are question begging. They all boil down to an uncaused cause is necessary because infinite regression is impossible, but you cannot presume infinite regression is impossible in an argument for an uncaused cause.
All you're doing is proposing the infinite regression paradox.For_The_Kingdom wrote:It is necessarily true because of the impossibility of life naturally originating from nonliving material.Tired of the Nonsense wrote: For this to be a valid point it would necessarily need be consistently true, and not simply true when you need it to be true, and not necessarily true when you need it to be not necessarily true.
Now, explain why it is necessarily true that evolution requires a divine orchestrator and why it is not therefore necessarily true that the divine orchestrator requires a divine orchestrator.
And to ask "why doesn't the divine orchestrator require a divine orchestrator" would be like asking "What was the cause of the uncaused cause".
It is nonsensical.
No, I don't remember that. What I do remember though is you saying "a reptile....slowly...evolving...into a bird."For_The_Kingdom wrote: Remember, I said that evolution is basically the premise that reptiles evovled into birds.
Ah, much better. Is it really that hard to stick to what evolution actually says?Your above response is "that is not what evolution says".
Yet, the wiki article on "evolution of birds" states..
"There is significant evidence that birds emerged within theropod dinosaurs, specifically, that birds are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others."
You think it corroborate with what you said? I don't think it does. But I'll let that slide, I admit it was somewhat nitpicky of me, assuming you understood the points re: an individual vs a population; and modern reptiles vs theropod dinosaurs.So, if I am wrong and what I said "is not what evolution says", then please explain why a person that doesn't know me from Adam corroborates what I said about evolution in the wiki link.
No, he is quite right.Is that person wrong, too? If so, please edit the article that the person wrote on wikipedia and replace it with the "right" stuff.
If you think we are playing a game, then surely that's all the more reason to learn exactly what evolution says, rather just the wishy washy, not quite accurate, the gist of it version of evolution? Why give your opponents room to call you out for not getting it 100% correct 100% of the time? Don't give us the chance to have your knowledge called in to question.I am not surprised that you did that, though. Because as I said before, that is the way the game is played. The person that doesn't believe in evolution always gets his knowledge called in to question...as if the evolutionist is so smart, and anyone that doesn't believe it is so dumb.
It happens all of the time, and I even predicted it would happen here. Whenever I speak on my beef with evolution, it is always in the context of "Reptiles never evolved into birds". Of course, it was going to take one person to say "but that is not what evolution says"....yet, when you Google "Reptiles evolved into birds", every pro-evolution article that was written on the subject says the same thing...that according to the TOE, reptiles evolved in to birds!!!
The archaeopteryx? That word gave it away, it was an individual.Was the archaeopteryx an individual, or a population?
No, that's incorrect. Splitting of one lineage into two is considered large, variation of one lineage is considered small. For a split to happen, there needs to be variation of a lineage, that's why micro evolution is a prerequisite of macro evolution; hence micro and macro.Um, "macroevolution" is used to describe the TYPE of change that is occuring...and the reptile-bird thing would be an example of such a "MACRO" change.
Macro = large
Micro = small
Have you considered the alternative that the mistake is not on my end?That is completely wrong.
I can't force you to believe birds evolution, but at least get the terms right. My post wasn't exactly about convincing you of evolution, it was about what the terms micro and macro evolution involve, so you know what exactly it is that you are not believing.This is all bio-babble. No matter how you want to define it, I am saying it doesn't occur. I am saying that reptile never evolved into a bird, no matter how yo define it, classify it, explain it, believe it.
Of course we believe life came from non living material. It's the how it happened that we are not sure of. Besides, that's not relevant. You asked me how evolution could be true without abiogenesis and your got my answer. Live came about via some unknown means other than abiogenesis, then evolution took over via mutation and natural selection. Consider your challenge met.For_The_Kingdom wrote: Makes no sense. Even atheists agree that life is finite, and if God doesn't exist, there is no way to explain the origins of finite life, if not from nonliving material.
Kinda missing the point. I am telling you, I don't need to explain how life came about for evolution to be true. And here you are talking as if I was trying to explain the origin of life.I mean, you can keep trying to explain it. Keep hope alive. But every time you try, I will be right back here to demonstrate how foolish of a concept it is.
How do you know that immaterial constructs cannot naturally originate from matter? It's an endless rabbit hole. Like I said, question begging.Because life, just like consciousness, are immaterial constructs. And immaterial constructs cannot naturally originate from matter. That would be like if you had all the matter in the world at your disposal, and trying to use all of that matter to construct a spirit. You can't do it.
Ok, I considered it. I acknowledge Christians believes in it.I will consider "future advances in technology" that will allow furniture to "come to life", when you consider the "future return of Jesus" that will "allow all believers to rise to eternal life".
I am referring to J Venter and co. Surely you've heard all the commotion about whether it qualify as "creating life" or merely "replicating life?"Um, no they don't and no they haven't. The closest they've come was the Miller-Urey experiment at which a few amino acids were created, but even then, they were a longgggg away from life, buddy. It ain't happening.
No.Would you believe that every time you leave your house, all of the furniture inside begins to talk, move around, laugh, and play?
I'd really like an answer to that. Would you believe that? Yes, or no?
That's the problem, can it really be disproven with ease? Only if you assume infinite regression is impossible to begin with. That's circular reasoning.Infinite regression is can be disproven with ease, and once such an absurd notion is negated, an uncaused cause is the only game left in town.
That is not a definition, that is not even a gross approximation. I'm asking for an address to a house and you're telling me it is somewhere between Chicago and Detroit.For_The_Kingdom wrote:"What taxonomic level a "kind equilibrates to"..H.sapiens wrote: Let's see, you said:
"Speciation is not macroevolution, it is microevolution. A dog, a wolf, and a coyote are all different species, but they are all obviously the same "kind" of animal. "
and:
"Macroevolution is the term we use to describe the large scale changes between two "kinds" of animals. By "kind", I guess that would mean either the genus or family."
I already demonstrated that both your comments were woefully inadequate. All I want to know is what taxonomic level a "kind" equilibrates to. That should not so hard and without a clear definition everything you've had to say is just so much unintelligible mush.
Answer: "By "kind", I guess that would mean either the genus or family."
I told you it was in there.
It would be a miracle for a dog to give birth to a non-dog and it would be a miracle for a reptile to lay an egg that hatched out a bird. Those are both ridiculous claims that no one is making. Strawman fallacyFor_The_Kingdom wrote:I repeat;H.sapiens wrote: Answer my question please rather than reference your past faceplants.
Answer: "By "kind", I guess that would mean either the genus or family."
So it would be a miracle if a "dog produced a non-dog", but it is perfectly natural for a "reptile to evolve into a bird"?H.sapiens wrote: No, have you? That would be a miracle. But that has nothing to do with the conversation, no one ever made such claim, you're just grasping at strawmen.
No, you are calling it such incorrectly. I have not changed cars, I have pointed out that your strawman does not mirror any claim that anyone has made. That does not make any sense to you because without an unsupported idea of your own invention, (e.g., instant speciation) your entire argument falls apart.For_The_Kingdom wrote: Makes no sense. Taxi cab fallacy.
Nonsense. What you are saying is that sum of the parts is less than the sum of the whole ... and that is illogical. You are also suggesting that inference a major tool in science should not be allowed and is "unscientific" even when it is derived from multiple perfectly supporting, harmonized and disparate sources.For_The_Kingdom wrote:I did provide a rational explanation. I said that of the two types of evolution that we can distinguish (macro/micro), it is the micro evolution that is science. Why? Because we observe it, we can experiment with it, and we can make predictions.H.sapiens wrote: No, I asked for a rational explanation. This is something you failed to clarify: Which is science and which is not ... and why.
Observation, experiment, and prediction <---what science is all about, and microevolution passes all three tests.
With macroevolution...that has never been observed, experimented on, and no prediction can be made in regards to it. So it is basically an unscientific notion.
It is clear throughout the article that no one is claiming, as you are, that a reptile laid an egg that hatched out a bird. From the very first sentence, "The evolution of birds began in the Jurassic Period, with the earliest birds derived from a clade of theropoda dinosaurs named Paraves." indicates that it is an ongoing process not an instantaneous event.For_The_Kingdom wrote:Remember, I said that evolution is basically the premise that reptiles evovled into birds. Your above response is "that is not what evolution says".Bust Nak wrote: I don't see how this illustration is supposed to be helping, it's still going to bring forth the "see, you don't even know what evolution is" or "but that's not what evolution says" because frankly that is not what evolution says.
Yet, the wiki article on "evolution of birds" states..
"There is significant evidence that birds emerged within theropod dinosaurs, specifically, that birds are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds
So, if I am wrong and what I said "is not what evolution says", then please explain why a person that doesn't know me from Adam corroborates what I said about evolution in the wiki link.
Is that person wrong, too? If so, please edit the article that the person wrote on wikipedia and replace it with the "right" stuff.
The only game here is the one you are attempting to play with the language.For_The_Kingdom wrote: I am not surprised that you did that, though. Because as I said before, that is the way the game is played. The person that doesn't believe in evolution always gets his knowledge called in to question...as if the evolutionist is so smart, and anyone that doesn't believe it is so dumb.
Of course it happens all the time, you have hit on a semantic game that think makes you look wise, but you remind me of the child who killed his parents and demands leniency form the court because he is an orphan.For_The_Kingdom wrote: It happens all of the time, and I even predicted it would happen here. Whenever I speak on my beef with evolution, it is always in the context of "Reptiles never evolved into birds". Of course, it was going to take one person to say "but that is not what evolution says"....yet, when you Google "Reptiles evolved into birds", every pro-evolution article that was written on the subject says the same thing...that according to the TOE, reptiles evolved in to birds!!!
...which is used to demonstrate the absurdity of infinity. If you can refute, go right ahead. I will wait.H.sapiens wrote: All you're doing is proposing the infinite regression paradox.
And with every passing day, we are making progress towards the return of Jesus Christ.H.sapiens wrote: All I'm doing is saying we don't have it pinned down yet, but we are making pretty good progress.
And?Bust Nak wrote:No, I don't remember that. What I do remember though is you saying "a reptile....slowly...evolving...into a bird."For_The_Kingdom wrote: Remember, I said that evolution is basically the premise that reptiles evovled into birds.
So basically, the above quote that you gave of the wiki article is pretty much a longer version of my quote from the wiki article which basically draws the same conclusion that "reptiles evovled into birds"...which is what I have been saying all along.Bust Nak wrote: Yet, the wiki article on "evolution of birds" states..
"There is significant evidence that birds emerged within theropod dinosaurs, specifically, that birds are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others."
Ah, much better. Is it really that hard to stick to what evolution actually says?
You get mad props for admitting that.Bust Nak wrote: You think it corroborate with what you said? I don't think it does. But I'll let that slide, I admit it was somewhat nitpicky of me
I will ask again; is the archeoterxy an individual, or a population?Bust Nak wrote: assuming you understood the points re: an individual vs a population; and modern reptiles vs theropod dinosaurs.
I said "reptiles evolved into birds", and why you would call that into question, I don't know.Bust Nak wrote: If you think we are playing a game, then surely that's all the more reason to learn exactly what evolution says, rather just the wishy washy, not quite accurate, the gist of it version of evolution? Why give your opponents room to call you out for not getting it 100% correct 100% of the time? Don't give us the chance to have your knowledge called in to question.
But then again, I am not the one that said evolution occurs in populations, not individuals (whatever the hell that means). If archeaopteryx is a transitonal fossil, then obviously evolution happens in individuals, right?Bust Nak wrote: The archaeopteryx? That word gave it away, it was an individual.
Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. If there is anything contrary to that, I haven't seen it yet. Come to think of it, neither have you or anyone else.Bust Nak wrote: No, that's incorrect. Splitting of one lineage into two is considered large, variation of one lineage is considered small. For a split to happen, there needs to be variation of a lineage, that's why micro evolution is a prerequisite of macro evolution; hence micro and macro.
No, I have not considered the alternative that the mistake is not on your end.Bust Nak wrote: Have you considered the alternative that the mistake is not on my end?
What I don't believe is the concept of a reptile evolving into a bird. You can apply whatever term you want to it.Bust Nak wrote: I can't force you to believe birds evolution, but at least get the terms right. My post wasn't exactly about convincing you of evolution, it was about what the terms micro and macro evolution involve, so you know what exactly it is that you are not believing.
