Dwise, you cannot tell us how the first protein came to be.
You cannot tell us how the first cell came about, or more
difficult still, how it became encased In a lipid membrane.
We don't know everything yet.
So what?
And what does that have to do with the discussion of your
lie of conflating evolution with "blind chance"?
NOTHING WHATSOEVER!
All you are trying to do is to
practice deception by deflecting and diverting
YET AGAIN, abiogenesis has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, just as evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with abiogenesis. When are you ever going to get that through your thick lifeless skull?
If you disagree,
then explain to us fully how you think that evolution is supposed to depend on abiogenesis.
Of course, that would require you to finally answer that question that you are so terrified of:
what do you think that evolution is and how it works.
That's the difference between our respective questions:
your "questions" are intended to be "impossible to answer" and hence to serve to prevent any discussion, whereas
my questions are very answerable and intended to promote discussion, so answerable that they should be almost trivial for you to answer. Indeed,
if you are unable to answer my simple direct questions, then you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and hence disqualify yourself and what you claim from any kind of serious consideration.
Besides, you would never ever bother to read our answers to your "question", nor even to look at them. You would just refuse to read them because "[voice=whiney_little_baby]
WAAAA!!! They're too long and my phone is too small!
WAAAA!!! [/voice]" You fucking hypocrite! Try actually reading the Bible and learn what Jesus thought of you hypocrites.
Blind chance is as unscientific as anything can possibly be.
Wrong! Blind chance is a subject studied in mathematics
But what the fuck is "blind chance" supposed to have to do with evolution?
Despite your repeated lies, they are not the same thing!
Yet again, if you disagree and truly think that they are the same thing,
then explain fully why you would think that!
Your refusal to offer that explanation is evidence that you know full well that you are deliberately lying!
Where are all the precursors of the fossils found in the
Cambrian explosion?
All of them? Really?
ALL of them? Fuck you, you stupid asshole!
The only reason for the "Cambrian explosion" is the appearance of hard body parts, which fossilize much more readily then soft body parts and which are easier to spot in rocks. For example, have an Xray taken of any part of your body and describe the details of the soft body tissue in that Xray; bones yes, soft tissue no, you fucking idiot.
So what's your point supposed to be? That you are completely clueless? Too late, we've known that all along.
A worldwide flood would be easily accepted by atheists
if God were not said cause for it.
Whatever gives you
that idea? Indeed, that has to be the single stupidest thing you have ever said here!
Your "worldwide flood" is completely contradicted by geological evidence. Why would an atheist, who relies as much as possible on actual evidence, ever arrive at the conclusion that you claim.
Rather,
believers in a "worldwide flood" who actually look at the evidence and give it serious consideration end up rejecting the idea of your "flood".
William Buckland and Adam Sedgewick set out to prove the Flood through geological fieldwork, but switched to rejecting the idea in face of the evidence; from my page,
GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF AN ANCIENT EARTH (CompuServe, Science & Religion Library, February 1990):
quote:
A third group, the Scriptural Geologists, or "diluvialists", was not so reluctant. This group got their start from the 1820's work of William Buckland and Adam Sedgwick in which they argued that river valleys and certain other sedimentary deposits were the results of a recent worldwide flood. In a few years, however, Buckland's own field work started undermining diluvialism and then, with the publication of Lyell's _Principles of Geology_, both Buckland and Sedgwick abandoned diluvialism.
But the Scriptural Geologists continued writing their views, which were hardly distinguishable from modern Flood Geologists, from the 1820's into the late 19th century. They were highly critical of catastrophists, uniformitarians, and the very founders of diluvialism alike, and Buckland and Sedgwick returned the favor with devastating rebuttals.
My first realization the creationism is a real and present danger for believers' faith came with Robert Schadewald's report of the 1986 International Conference on Creationism -- following is from the same page as above and was originally a CompuServe forum reply I had written:
quote:
Paul:
Sorry for the delay, but I've been very busy and there is no end in sight. So I have to answer this one very briefly, first with a more complete recounting of Morton at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism (ICC).
Since his report was on the ICC itself, Robert Schadewald did not go into great depth on this single subject. However, he did have conversations (and breakfast) with Glenn R. Morton, a practicing petroleum geologist (area geophysicist for Arco Exploration Co.) and a staunch creationist who "want[s] an earth as young as [he] can get it," but who realizes that it is much older than mere thousands of years. Morton has published numerous articles critical of Flood Geology in the _Creation Research Society Quarterly_. His paper, "Geological Challenges to a Young Earth," is a devastating rebuttal to Flood Geology. On the day before Morton's presentation, Schadewald was trying to explain some of the geological evidence against Flood Geology to a creationist physicist (who, like most conference attendees, had no understanding of the scientific ideas that he has rejecting) when he asked Morton to help out. Morton obliged with a capsule version of his presentation -- this "capsule" took an hour. Schadewald writes:
"As conventional geologists know, the evidence against Flood Geology comes from everywhere. Morton cited the Green River shale, which has bird tracks in many of its millions of layers. There are too many fossils; microscopic fossils of diatoms are found in beds up to three kilometers thick. Many limestones look just like shallow-water deposits being laid down today, burrows and all. Seismic data shows ranges of mesas like we see in the west today -- buried in sedimentary rock. Using oil well drilling logs, geologists can map ancient rivers -- channeled deltas, sand crescents, and so forth -- now deeply buried in sedimentary rock. Pollen grains found in salt deposits prove they are evaporites, in clear contradiction to Henry Morris' claims. And so on, for an hour. Morton's job gives him access to a tremendous library of seismic profiles and well logs, and he used these and other graphics to illustrate his points."
The entire ICR geology staff (John Morris, Steve Austin, and David McQueen) was present the next day for Morton's presentation. During the question period, Austin criticized Morton for attacking a 25-year-old publication and then implicitly repudiated _The Genesis Flood_ himself. But the fun started when John Morris identified himself as a petroleum geologist and accused Morton of sounding like an anticreationist and told him to quit raising problems and start solving them. Schadewald writes:
"Morton chopped him off at the ankles. Two questions, said Morton: 'What oil company did you work for?' Well, uh, actually Morris never worked for an oil company, but he once taught petroleum engineering at the University of Oklahoma. Second, 'How old is the earth?' 'If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning.' Morton then said that he had hired several graduates of Christian Heritage College, and that all of them suffered severe crises of faith. They were utterly unprepared to face the geological facts every petroleum geologist deals with on a daily basis. Morton neglected to add that ICR is much better known for ignoring or denying problems than for working on them."
Of course, you will refuse to read any of that, so fuck you, you stupid asshole. And fuck your stupid little god of lies and deception too!
Glenn R. Morton published a site filled with geological evidence which disproves the creationist flood, some fragments of which have been preserved through archiving and reposting. To save me time and effort, here is the section on Glenn Morton from
my links page (reformatted from HTML to dBCodes):
quote:
Glenn R. Morton
It was Glenn R. Morton's story that first made me aware of the deleterious effects of "creation science" on its followers' faith and how it can literally destroy their faith. Glenn R. Morton used to be a young-earth creationist and had originally learned geology through creationist sources. Then when he started working as a petroleum geologist he had to deal daily with rock-hard geological facts that directly contradicted what creation science had taught him and that he had been taught could not exist if Scripture were to have any meaning. This drove him to the brink of becoming an atheist and he would have gone over that brink if he hadn't arrived at an approach to attempt a scientifically accurate harmonization.
Morton had created a fairly extensive web site which contained many articles about geological evidence and how it relates to what "creation science" claims (ie, the evidence disproves those claims) as well as testimonials from people whose faith was either lost or nearly lost because of creation science and some reports from "intelligent design" conferences. That site was an excellent resource, but then he took it down when he became upset that some atheists were using it to attack Christianity.
Fortunately, a number of his pages were archived by other sites and reposted, though finding a specific one can be something of a scavanger hunt.
For example:
- Glenn R. Morton
Old Earth Ministries archived a number of Morton's pages. That link takes you to their author profile page for him, which includes links to the about 20 articles of his that they have. It includes his two personal testimonials detailing his deconversion from young-earth creationism:
- Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look
This one's a two-fer! Courtesy of the WayBackMachine web archive, it's a good article from 1998 which counters a number of claims despite being short.
Second, it starts with a list of about 50 links to his other articles, almost all of them dealing with the Flood and the actual geological evidence.
- The WayBackMachine web archive's copy of Morton's site from 2010 August 11
Looks promising, but not all the links work (eg, his reporting of the "intelligent design" Nature of Nature conference in Waco, TX). Fortunately, the index page for testimonials,
Personal Stories of the Creation/Evolution Struggle is there.
I quote from Steve Smith's testimony on
my quotes page, but now you can read it in its entirety.
- Talk Origins Archive
Glenn Morton had written several articles for talk.orgins. Follow the link above and do a search on his name.
- Google
Or whatever your favorite search engine happens to be. Look up Glenn R. Morton. Or better yet, "G.R. Morton", since that's what he would write in his copyright line.
™ Version 4.2
(1)