Zuc, your problem is to show how life arose from non-life.
Why? And what can we conclude from a non-expert "man on the street" not being able to answer a highly technical question that requires expertise in that field? Simply that we expecting expert answers from non-experts is a foolish expectation practiced by idiots. Such idiots as you.
Besides, you already know that abiogensis has nothing to do with evolution. So why do you continue to practice this deception?
The low of biogenesis is firm and immovable.
As opposed to the "high of biogenesis"?
You still understand nothing of scientific laws. They were a summary statement of observations while apply only under certain circumstances outside of which they no longer apply. For example, the gas laws only apply under the conditions of standard temperature and pressure. Kepler's Laws of planetary motion only apply for two-body problems and in the absence of relativistic effects (eg, the perihelion of Mercury's orbit).
The "Law of Biogenesis" only applies under current conditions, which include the life existing already and ready to devour any new organic compounds that may come into existence ("What do you call newly formed precursors of life? Food!). Also, it is applied against the idea of spontaneous generation of entire organisms (eg, mice or fly maggots) and was never intended to apply to abiogenesis.
Please stop misapplying it. The first step would be for you to reject a central teaching of your religion AND LEARN SOMETHING.
Do you acknowledge the Creator?
Well, we know that YOU DON'T!
You are a creationist. Creationists are opposed to The Creation and hence also The Creator in their crusade to replace The Creation with their false contrary-to-reality narrative and The Creator with their own pathetic false god.
In the meantime, DO YOUR JOB! You made an assertion, so it is YOUR responsibility to support it.
Still with your stupid "prove how life started" bullshit?
YOU are the one claiming that evolution depends on abiogenesis, NOT US! The two are not connected! We have explained that to you over and over and over and OVER AND OVER AND O*V*E*R AGAINand you are still too WILLFULLY STUPID to understand such a simple and straightforward fact?
Seriously, what is WRONG WITH YOU?
When we make a statement or an assertion, then we support it.
But when you make an assertion, YOU DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE (and even impossible) TO AVOID SUPPORTING YOUR OWN ASSERTION!
Change is observable, but the propaganda that universities are spewing out is not observable.
Wow, you really have no clue at all what you are talking about. You don't know what is taught in the universities nor how. Have you ever attended college? In the sciences? At a post-graduate level (ie, beyond a bachelor's degree)?
Here's a video in which the creationist calling in to Forrest Valkai and Erika "Gutsick Gibbon" makes your same ignorant claim about universities being dogmatic, etc:
The creationist makes that claim around the 23:20 mark, though what Forrest has to say winding up around 22:45 is also good.
Both Forrest and Erika are in the middle of and deeply involved in their post-graduate studies in science (Forrest on his sixth degree and Erika on her doctorate). They describe to the creationist in detail how university studies in the sciences works, and how research works, and how the evidence works.
You keep demanding DETAILED answers. Well, here's your chance! Watch that video (Oh look! I even provided you a LINK to that video, something that you would never do for us!) and have your questions answered.
Of course, you're too willfully ignorant (and very willfully stupid about it), so you will run away from it yet again. But others who are not afraid of learning something should find it interesting.
Not only do they describe how they are trained in critical thinking ("College doesn't teach you what to think, but rather how to think." A corollary is that they teach you how to learn.). That is accomplished by having you read many scientific articles and to analyze them, finding what they did wrong and having you suggest improvements, etc. Erika especially gets into how the scientific method works in practice and how the fossil record is studied and analyzed.
Seriously, it is one of their best videos. And surprisingly the creationist is respectful enough (for a welcome change) to hear them out, even though he never stops trying to project his own faults and failings upon science (which he knows nothing about -- he did get a BA but refused to divulge his major, and Forrest described what his "1000-level" science classes had taught him (the bare essentials) and how post-graduate study goes way beyond that).
Did I mention that this is a very good video that we can learn a lot from. Well, except for those who are too willfully ignorant and whose faith demands they possess zero knowledge.
Re: How the US Ranks on Female Mortality During Childbirth
So I'm assuming you don't have a source to support the idea that scientists believe what you say. In other words, it's all hot air.
Again, there is no point in discussing anything else when you won't answer a very simple question.
Show the sources. Until then, the only thing you're getting, is me repeatedly asking that question and nothing else.
Go show your source for your belief about scientists. Or be honest and say there is no such source and it's just your own personal belief about scientists.
The topic is why we're all so bad at convincing the other side. Using examples from the creation/evolution debate makes sense, but the examples themselves are not the topic of this thread.
Eventhough the back and forth was way off topic, it does fit to provide evidence for the problem as a whole.
I imagine there's a different name for this phenomenon that I can't find, but I call it the crazy man's dilemma. It's the idea that if you are in a group of people, and all these people think you are crazy or insane, then everything you say will be perceived through that lens. Even if you're 100% saying something factual, it will be regarded as words coming from a crazy man.
Obviously there are quite a few variations on this, in this thread, Candle3 considers the rest here as crazy men, sinners, wrong by virtue of not believing what he does.
And he dogmatically refuses to face facts head on or discuss things in a focused manner.
This is a problem I see with believers all around, not just Creationism, but flat earthers as well.
I remember a point where their model of the world has the south pole set up as a circle around the perceived edge of the world, like so:
Many flat earthers would say, this is why no flights go to the so called south pole, because it doesn't exist, but they don't take people to the 'edge'
But there are flights going to the south pole, and so, a pastor I believe actually offered to take people there, pay for it all himself and then the record could be set straight.
See, one of the problems with their model of a flat world, is that it's impossible for the sun to bring light to an area 24 hours a day, though with the earths actual tilt, that's exactly what you get on antarctica.
So a couple of believers in a flat earth join and they find, oh, there is 24 hour sun here, shit. Well, just say "People should make up their own mind" and once they got back home, continue doing the same thing they did before.
Because it doesn't matter. Believers in things aren't looking to challenge themselves, they are very comfortable in their position and anyone that doesn't share it, is by default crazy.
It's just that they haven't found the way yet to make it clear how crazy.
So are we bat at convincing the other side? I'd say no, I'd say the other side is setting up an immovable wall of belief in front of themselves, and nothing is going to change that.
ZUC, have you ever thought about the specified complexity of the kinesin motor protein.
The job of the kinesin is to transport was cellular components (cargo) alongs microtubules to designated parts of the cell.
The KMP actually walks. It packs it cargo on its back. When a load is too heavy for one, more can help. And when navigating to another pathway, the kinesin gives its cargo to another KMP.
The kinesin can deliver its cargo to any part of the cell. It is similar to a mailman, who sorts the mail, and then carries it to its destination.
Look up the KMP on YouTube and tell us how it created itself. Where did it get the information required to do this?
Or, how about the flagella motor that contains 40 parts, consisting of gears, bushings, etc... it even has reverse.
The flagella is a rotary engine, with whip-like tails, that propels the bacterium. The rotary engine rotates at a speed of nearly 300 revolutions per second. It is powered by the flow of protons.
It is more complicated than anything man can create. How can simple bacterium possess such sophisticated machinery?
Science has never observed anything close to this creating itself.
How did the flagella motor create itself? Look it up on YouTube.
It is more complicated than anything man can create.
It is more complicated that anything we have seen intelligently designed. Therefore it did not result from intelligent design. It comes from evolution.
Science has never observed anything close to this creating itself.
It evolved. This is very different from saying that it created itself.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
I'm reminded of the flat earther who a few years ago launched himself on a rocket of his own construction and was killed. He believed that by going up maybe a mile on his rocket he would have a view that would prove a flat earth, even though he had flown on airliners traveling at a 5 mile height and not been convinced. Why did he think his rocket would provide him convincing data? Who knows, but he was willing to risk his life trying.
There's a kind of person who just can't be convinced by real world data. They believe what they believe and that's that, facts be damned. They are the most frustrating people in the world, particularly when they're in your family and you have to see them every Thanksgiving.
I'm reminded of the flat earther who a few years ago launched himself on a rocket of his own construction and was killed. He believed that by going up maybe a mile on his rocket he would have a view that would prove a flat earth, even though he had flown on airliners traveling at a 5 mile height and not been convinced. Why did he think his rocket would provide him convincing data? Who knows, but he was willing to risk his life trying. There's a kind of person who just can't be convinced by real world data. They believe what they believe and that's that, facts be damned. They are the most frustrating people in the world, particularly when they're in your family and you have to see them every Thanksgiving.
That is an amazing bonkers story. I recently at least had one little success. I'm from the Netherlands and Trumps antics are of course, daily news. Lotsa discuss surrounding it as well, and I noticed someone that said something along the lines of:
"Even though he's a big asshole, he does get things done, like brokering a deal for peace, or pushing Canada and Mexico into adding security"
And a few other things, and so I explained to him that Trump is a master of lying, the deal brokered for peace in Ukraine comes from stabbing Ukraine in the back on a deal the US made before and it's pushing Ukraine against a wall by breaking it. Not exactly showing a good deal.
As for Canada and Mexico, the fact that there were already deals on the table with Biden and nothing much changed to those deals, yet Trump claims it was his doing that made those deals possible, is just absolute bullshit.
He's done nothing but yoyo around with his changes and policies.
The best he's done is convince all his previous allies to see him as untrustworthy.
And that worked.
So can we convince hard core believers in something, probably not, but anyone on the fringe, is generally open to learning more.
It is science that prevents me from believing in evolution.
The simple cell is more complex than a space shuttle.
If you believe that a space shuttle can design and build itself, then you, Zuc, Dwise, and all atheists are total idiots.
You know that the cell could not and did not design and build itself. No one is that foolish.
Atheists simply refuse to acknowledge God. They have this mentality that if they deny Him that He will simply disappear.
It doesn't work like that
Darwin thought the the cell consisted of nothing more than a jelly like substance inside a membrane.
Darwin also believed that little water bugs, sometimes seen on small puddles, spontaneously sprang to life.
Dinosaurs with soft tissue, blood cells, and C-14 are the best proof against evolution.
Observational science clearly proves that life can only come from pre-existing life. Not one has life been observed coming from non-life
Observational science clearly proves that kind produces kind. For example, a human will always produce a human. A pig will always produce a pig. A chimp will always produce a chimp. Never have we observed differently.
You might not like observational science, but that's tough. It is what it is.
You might have faith in evolution, but you have no proof.
My issue is not that people want to believe in evolution. It is that they claim evolution is a fact. This is a lie.
Natural selection is exactly what it says. It only selects from the genes in pool. An ape can never be anything but an ape, regardless of how many centuries pass.
Infinite time can never do the impossible.
Evolutionists are the ones who are deluded. They cannot understand basic scientific principles. They believe that eons of time can distort the laws of science.
"Remaining on topic, why do you think you’re not succeeding in convincing anyone?"
***It is really difficult to convince someone who already has his mind made up.
Percy, do you understand the complexity of the single cell?
I stated that the simple cell is as selectively complicated as a space shuttle. I might have understated this. I believe that it is as complicated as the universe is.
Even Dawkins has stated that the cell has the appearance of design. If you are honest with yourself, you will also admit this Is true, whether you believe it or not.
I believe in creation because this is what I see. From symbiotic relationships to extreme complexity, from organisms on the highest mountains to those in the deepest depths of the oceans, I see design.
With all our current knowledge, from sending crafts outside our solar system, to landing sophisticated machines on Mars, we cannot duplicate the amazing machinery inside our bodies
The info required to reproduce us is in our DNA. Mutations and natural selection does not produce the info needed to upgrade any organism.
The knowledge required to create everything we see is amazing. We can have access to the God of this knowledge. It makes absolutely no sense to run from Him.
But, I understand. The ability of Satan to deceive is also amazing
Instead of trying to deflect and evade by posting ever more steaming piles of stupid creationist bullshit :
JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!
All you're telling us is how dishonest you are and how false your religion is.
And how completely and stupidly ignorant you are that you are completely incapable of answering a simple direct question.
What the fuck is so completely wrong with you?
PS
If you knew anything at all, you would realize that relying on complexity arguments is a very stupid mistake to make.
We know from every experiment using evolutionary processes that the results they produce are very complex, irreducibly even. In my decades-long career as an Intelligent Designer, every single time we used an evolutionary approach to maintaining a product, its complexity would grow exponentially.
Therefore, if something in nature is highly complex, then that is a sure sign that it had evolved.
PPS
But, I understand. The ability of Satan to deceive is also amazing
No, you do not understand since you persist in projecting your own faults onto others.
You are the one who serves Satan through your incessant lies.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
