the origin of the living cell
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2013, 10:33 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 09:58 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  I'm still waiting for the scientific "well established evidence of the man to ape connection." I mean SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE not SPECULATION.

(10-06-2013 10:12 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  Prove to me from the fossil record that evolution took place in the ancient past and is an ongoing process in this 21st century.

You've shown yourself to be quite wilfully ignorant, so I don't suppose there's much point in attempting discussion, but sometimes I have nothing better to do.

I'll go point by point. Let me know when I get to something you disagree with.

1. There are observable differences between individuals of any given species.
2. Offspring differ from their parents, because they carry a mix of their parents' hereditary traits.
3. Some individuals are more likely to reproduce, based on the traits they exhibit.
4. The effect of 1-3 is: traits are propagated through a population.

If you've made it this far, congratulations. You accept evolution. If that's not how you define evolution then you're wrong. It's that simple. Read a book.

As to human evolution:

4. Fossils exist.
5. Fossils of modern human beings are only found in the last several hundred thousand years.
5A. This age is attested by all known geological factors and radiological testing.
6. From 5: modern human beings did not exist prior to that time.
7. Fossils of very similar humans have been found which date immediately prior to that.
8. Repeat step 7 for several million years worth of fossils and strata.
9. Fossils of modern species of apes are found only in the last several hundred thousand years.
10. Fossils of very similar apes have been found found which date immediately prior to that.
11. Repeat step 10 for several million years worth of fossils and strata.
12. Steps 7 and 10 lead to converge on a single set of ancestors.

So which part of reality do you reject?

Protip: if you actually wanted answers, you could very easily do your own search. Refusing to do so suggests malice, dishonesty, or plain stupidity. I'd bet on all three.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
10-06-2013, 10:39 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
Dan Steeves, You originally asked how did life start, we (atheists) allowed that it is not well understood yet, but there are hypotheses. You rejected that.

Then you questioned evolution about which there is little controversy in the scientific community and you rejected that.

You allowed as all religions are venal, I personally accept that.

You have been questioned about what proof do you have of a "god". You rejected that.

I reject whatever non religious god you have because I am simply a spec of dust on a planet that supports specs of dust. I am comfortable, you apparently are not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like JAH's post
10-06-2013, 10:41 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 10:20 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 10:12 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  You mean the atheist evolutionists are not able to defend their own convictions on the non-existence of God? Do I really have to google it? Why don't you convince me with scientific evidence of atheistic evolution? Let's start with the fossil record.
Prove to me from the fossil record that evolution took place in the ancient past and is an ongoing process in this 21st century.

Why are you theists so angry with the universe? What about believing in God makes you so hostile? It's yet another thing they project onto Atheists. You'd think if they really believed it would make them happy, yet they are always spewing hate and vitriol at anyone they meet that doesn't line up with them 100%.

I really don't know and I don't understand it. It's the hostility from the beginning that's so steeped in arrogance. Now I should be clear, no all do that. We have had some nice theist types visit here and they're quite nice and truly just want to understand us better. We discuss. They ask intelligent questions and we provide answers, then we ask questions and they get to answer.

This is how we learn about each other.

But far too many come in with their "guns blazing" thinking they're going to trip us into saying god (or something like it) must exist or something along those lines...It won't happen.

Not all atheists believe in evolution. I met a woman once who was an atheist when it came to god, but believed that aliens created us. Not to mention many theists do believe it in it and believe the whole god of the gaps idea...

I have no issue with those types. As our own knowledge expands, god becomes smaller anyway.

If we could all focus on the ways we're similar than our differences the world might be better.

Who knows. I seriously doubt this guy if he met any of us on the street would be all "in our face" about evolution.

But I will say he's a reason the vast majority of us remain in the closet about our disbelief. 20 years ago (or more) I could have been sitting beside him in church. He wouldn't have known the difference. The person sitting across from him might not really believe and are just going through the motions.

In fact, and I'm just musing, but he might be questioning his own beliefs and came here to make himself feel better.

I suspect it's the reason many theists come here and why eventually they all leave just as abruptly as they arrived.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
10-06-2013, 10:49 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 10:31 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 10:24 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Oh goodness....You are rather thick. I've already explained that I won't do your homework for you. If I did that you'll never learn anything. No

If you truly wish to learn, and expand your mind. I would suggest you read more than the pathetic layman 'AIG' and delve in headier works...that are actually supported by scientists. Google is a fantastic place to begin. There you can find countless studies and books written on the subject.

Wikipedia is an alright beginning, you can click on citations listed and read the information cited. You can even delve deeper and read the bios -- about the people who wrote the articles cited and decide if you believe they're worthy. Thinking for yourself can be wonderful!!! And don't just read ONE article read many...The more the better.

And you can even download Darwin's Origin of the Species for FREE to your Kindle device. Can you imagine that you can read Darwin's real words -- not just some watered down version written by someone else telling you what to think -- but Darwin's actual words.

I'll admit he's a bit verbose in places --- but that was also the time.

Now, when you're finished assembling all your information we might be ready to have a real discussion.

But right now, you're simply not ready for that. I'm quite convinced you didn't know the term abiogenesis existed before coming here (Otherwise you would have included it in your original post). I think also evolution by natural selection was also a new term for you...

Your already learning new and exciting things. Please don't stop.

Shoo fly!

Yes, I've known for years that ABIOGENESIS means life came from non-life which is an unproved hypothesis. If it (abiogenesis) truly is a proven science why don't we see it happening today?

You are deeply confused. The way our planet looks today is not at all how it appeared at it's beginning. 4.54 billion years ago our planet was likely lifeless. The atmosphere was different. Life emerged because the conditions were good at the time. Nothing more. As the planet changed so did the life. It's really simple. There could be life on other planets...we just haven't found it...but it doesn't mean it's not there.

No gods required for all that...Just a whole lot of time.

Shoo fly


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2013, 10:50 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 10:31 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 10:24 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Oh goodness....You are rather thick. I've already explained that I won't do your homework for you. If I did that you'll never learn anything. No

If you truly wish to learn, and expand your mind. I would suggest you read more than the pathetic layman 'AIG' and delve in headier works...that are actually supported by scientists. Google is a fantastic place to begin. There you can find countless studies and books written on the subject.

Wikipedia is an alright beginning, you can click on citations listed and read the information cited. You can even delve deeper and read the bios -- about the people who wrote the articles cited and decide if you believe they're worthy. Thinking for yourself can be wonderful!!! And don't just read ONE article read many...The more the better.

And you can even download Darwin's Origin of the Species for FREE to your Kindle device. Can you imagine that you can read Darwin's real words -- not just some watered down version written by someone else telling you what to think -- but Darwin's actual words.

I'll admit he's a bit verbose in places --- but that was also the time.

Now, when you're finished assembling all your information we might be ready to have a real discussion.

But right now, you're simply not ready for that. I'm quite convinced you didn't know the term abiogenesis existed before coming here (Otherwise you would have included it in your original post). I think also evolution by natural selection was also a new term for you...

Your already learning new and exciting things. Please don't stop.

Shoo fly!

Yes, I've known for years that ABIOGENESIS means life came from non-life which is an unproved hypothesis. If it (abiogenesis) truly is a proven science why don't we see it happening today?

The conditions on earth today are vastly different than 4 billion years ago.

For example, there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere, the oceans had no oxygen dissolved in them, temperatures were different, the days were shorter, the moon was closer, and on and on.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-06-2013, 10:51 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 10:33 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 09:58 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  I'm still waiting for the scientific "well established evidence of the man to ape connection." I mean SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE not SPECULATION.

(10-06-2013 10:12 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  Prove to me from the fossil record that evolution took place in the ancient past and is an ongoing process in this 21st century.

You've shown yourself to be quite wilfully ignorant, so I don't suppose there's much point in attempting discussion, but sometimes I have nothing better to do.

I'll go point by point. Let me know when I get to something you disagree with.

1. There are observable differences between individuals of any given species.
2. Offspring differ from their parents, because they carry a mix of their parents' hereditary traits.
3. Some individuals are more likely to reproduce, based on the traits they exhibit.
4. The effect of 1-3 is: traits are propagated through a population.

If you've made it this far, congratulations. You accept evolution. If that's not how you define evolution then you're wrong. It's that simple. Read a book.

As to human evolution:

4. Fossils exist.
5. Fossils of modern human beings are only found in the last several hundred thousand years.
5A. This age is attested by all known geological factors and radiological testing.
6. From 5: modern human beings did not exist prior to that time.
7. Fossils of very similar humans have been found which date immediately prior to that.
8. Repeat step 7 for several million years worth of fossils and strata.
9. Fossils of modern species of apes are found only in the last several hundred thousand years.
10. Fossils of very similar apes have been found found which date immediately prior to that.
11. Repeat step 10 for several million years worth of fossils and strata.
12. Steps 7 and 10 lead to converge on a single set of ancestors.

So which part of reality do you reject?

Protip: if you actually wanted answers, you could very easily do your own search. Refusing to do so suggests malice, dishonesty, or plain stupidity. I'd bet on all three.
If fossils of modern human beings go back hundreds of thousands of years why is it recorded the history of human civilization only goes back about 4,300 years with the cradle of civilization being located in Mesopotamia and ancient Babylon? This is exactly what the bible book of Genesis states in chapters 10 and 11. This is called the science of ARCHEOLOGY and ANTHROPOLOGY. The next time you're in London I suggest you visit the British Museum. Archeology confirms the bible record regarding places, cities, people world powers etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2013, 11:03 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
he still thinks civilization is an intrinsic and natural trait of humans. Pop a baby and it speaks Sumerian by instinct! Tongue

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
10-06-2013, 11:04 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 10:51 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  If fossils of modern human beings go back hundreds of thousands of years why is it recorded the history of human civilization only goes back about 4,300 years with the cradle of civilization being located in Mesopotamia and ancient Babylon? This is exactly what the bible book of Genesis states in chapters 10 and 11. This is called the science of ARCHEOLOGY and ANTHROPOLOGY. The next time you're in London I suggest you visit the British Museum. Archeology confirms the bible record regarding places, cities, people world powers etc.

If writing goes back 4000 years (hint: it's actually ~6000), then why are printed books only recorded for the last six hundred years?

Well, let's think - it wasn't invented yet?

Your question is a bizarre non-sequitor. No one here has denied the existence of ancient Babylon, you see. The Old Testament as literal history IS specious, but the general outline - the independence and subsequent squabbling of the syro-palestinean judean tribes, post Bronze Age collapse, as the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Hittites withdrew; their later reconquest as the Neo-Assyrians, Neo-Babylonians, Medeans, and finally Persians assumed regional hegemony - are absolutely true. That the Biblical account of more speculative and supernatural events is mere variation on the prevailing themes of the region's contemporary mythology is also absolutely true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
10-06-2013, 11:04 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 10:51 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 10:33 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You've shown yourself to be quite wilfully ignorant, so I don't suppose there's much point in attempting discussion, but sometimes I have nothing better to do.

I'll go point by point. Let me know when I get to something you disagree with.

1. There are observable differences between individuals of any given species.
2. Offspring differ from their parents, because they carry a mix of their parents' hereditary traits.
3. Some individuals are more likely to reproduce, based on the traits they exhibit.
4. The effect of 1-3 is: traits are propagated through a population.

If you've made it this far, congratulations. You accept evolution. If that's not how you define evolution then you're wrong. It's that simple. Read a book.

As to human evolution:

4. Fossils exist.
5. Fossils of modern human beings are only found in the last several hundred thousand years.
5A. This age is attested by all known geological factors and radiological testing.
6. From 5: modern human beings did not exist prior to that time.
7. Fossils of very similar humans have been found which date immediately prior to that.
8. Repeat step 7 for several million years worth of fossils and strata.
9. Fossils of modern species of apes are found only in the last several hundred thousand years.
10. Fossils of very similar apes have been found found which date immediately prior to that.
11. Repeat step 10 for several million years worth of fossils and strata.
12. Steps 7 and 10 lead to converge on a single set of ancestors.

So which part of reality do you reject?

Protip: if you actually wanted answers, you could very easily do your own search. Refusing to do so suggests malice, dishonesty, or plain stupidity. I'd bet on all three.
If fossils of modern human beings go back hundreds of thousands of years why is it recorded the history of human civilization only goes back about 4,300 years with the cradle of civilization being located in Mesopotamia and ancient Babylon? This is exactly what the bible book of Genesis states in chapters 10 and 11. This is called the science of ARCHEOLOGY and ANTHROPOLOGY. The next time you're in London I suggest you visit the British Museum. Archeology confirms the bible record regarding places, cities, people world powers etc.

Archeology shows that the Bible gets some things right, and much wrong.
Archeology and analysis show the Bible was written by people with imperfect knowledge of the natural world and history.

You seem to think that people appeared and looked around and decided to domesticate plants and animals, invent language and writing, build cities, and write some holy books.

Civilization is not easy. It took a very long time to learn about the natural world, to discover and invent technologies, to domesticate plants and animals, to become civilized.

You need to read more and write less.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
10-06-2013, 11:10 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
Recorded history and fossil history are two different things.

And oh yes the British Museum, home of stolen goods. Often in the name of the empire and the "church of england".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JAH's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: