FE: Not science? or impossible to test?

  • 127 Replies
  • 24123 Views
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: FE: Not science? or impossible to test?
« Reply #120 on: September 29, 2013, 09:41:00 PM »
Lets put it into pictures for you. It should be better for your reading level.





Basic blocks building something bigger. This forum is code and is basic. You do not need complex science to make a forum. Sheesh a whole page just to get a point across. And I used to wonder why the term perma noob was so abundant here.

Thank you this helps my argument. Resolution affirmed.

*

Thork

  • 1686
  • +1/-0
  • Please do not touch or disturb me.
Re: FE: Not science? or impossible to test?
« Reply #121 on: September 30, 2013, 08:06:16 AM »
Same with evolution, it starts with a single cell organism and then over billions of years exceedingly complex.
No I dispute this. Evolution starts with something complicated. Allow me to use wikipedia.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba#Genome
The amoeba is remarkable for its very large genome. The species Amoeba proteus has 290 billion base pairs in its genome, while the related Polychaos dubium (formerly known as Amoeba dubia) has 670 billion base pairs. The human genome is small by contrast, with its count of 2.9 billion base pairs.[9]

More that half a trillion base pairs to make a single celled organism. Base pairs that have to be ordered in a way that works. This is not a simple 0 or 1 beginning. You need something massively complicated in order that it can absorb nutrients and replicate itself. Saying it just happened as a fluke and is very basic shows your ignorance of the subject matter.

It's simply amazing that you are even trying to argue that a single cell is just as complex as an human being.
I just showed you that from a genetic stand point, it can be.

Aevan's argument is ridiculous for a couple of reasons: he is asserting that an Amoeba is as complex as a whale
No. I said an amoeba is an incredibly complex thing and is hardly an easy base or starting point for evolution. If you can accept the ameoba as the starting point formed by luck in a primordial soup, you may as well fall on your knees and thank God for creating it. Evolution has a massive flaw in that it does not explain the beginning.

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • +0/-0
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: FE: Not science? or impossible to test?
« Reply #122 on: September 30, 2013, 08:32:41 AM »
Evolution fails to begin with a single celled organism.  The impression received by me was that a primordial soup created the first chains of amino acids.  This primordial soup originated from a corroboration or rocks and natural heat.

However, the experiment used to prove this postulation, The Miller/Urey Experiment, only created half of the known amino acids involved in living processes.

This experiment, once again, only resulted in half of the amino acids needed for life.  In other words, the theory fails to come from reality.  Surprisingly, in the same environment, the other amino acids cannot form.

The entire process of evolution never holds the potential for substantiated existence.  The scientific method, in truth, never possesses the potential to validate evolutionary beliefs.  Evolution relies on the gods of soulless infinite time, space, and randomness. 

Supposedly old fossils, only present guesses as to their age.  Some dinosaur fossils still possessed red blood cells inside of the bone marrow in perfect form.

Water and rain leech away minerals inside of rocks, changing the dates to be older than they actually are.

Dating techniques prove inaccurate by the presence of tree roots through layers of rock, allegedly millions of years apart...


Nothing of great complexity comes from hand less acts.  Look at these examples:

Computer programs fail to just spontaneously generate.  The same thing applies to biomechanics of living organisms.

No one rips a phone book apart into tiny little pinky nail pieces, throws them up in the air, and hopes for them to regenerate into a full phone book in exact page order.  (All of that with the wind blowing at the same time)

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: FE: Not science? or impossible to test?
« Reply #123 on: September 30, 2013, 12:18:28 PM »
Evolution fails to begin with a single celled organism.  The impression received by me was that a primordial soup created the first chains of amino acids.  This primordial soup originated from a corroboration or rocks and natural heat.

However, the experiment used to prove this postulation, The Miller/Urey Experiment, only created half of the known amino acids involved in living processes.

This experiment, once again, only resulted in half of the amino acids needed for life.  In other words, the theory fails to come from reality.  Surprisingly, in the same environment, the other amino acids cannot form.

The entire process of evolution never holds the potential for substantiated existence.  The scientific method, in truth, never possesses the potential to validate evolutionary beliefs.  Evolution relies on the gods of soulless infinite time, space, and randomness. 

Supposedly old fossils, only present guesses as to their age.  Some dinosaur fossils still possessed red blood cells inside of the bone marrow in perfect form.

Water and rain leech away minerals inside of rocks, changing the dates to be older than they actually are.

Dating techniques prove inaccurate by the presence of tree roots through layers of rock, allegedly millions of years apart...


Nothing of great complexity comes from hand less acts.  Look at these examples:

Computer programs fail to just spontaneously generate.  The same thing applies to biomechanics of living organisms.

No one rips a phone book apart into tiny little pinky nail pieces, throws them up in the air, and hopes for them to regenerate into a full phone book in exact page order.  (All of that with the wind blowing at the same time)

Why are you arguing about whether or not evolution is true?

It was brought up as an example of how complexity can arrive from simplicity. The example of evolution in this instance is being used given that it is true. Not if.

Also your argument about computers not spontaneously generating is misleading. The mechanism for the original computers evolving into what they are today is human intelligence and the mechanism for the simple beginnings of evolution evolve into complex beings is natural selection.

There is no implication of randomness in either example.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2013, 12:24:49 PM by rottingroom »

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • +0/-0
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: FE: Not science? or impossible to test?
« Reply #124 on: September 30, 2013, 12:59:26 PM »
Evolution fails to begin with a single celled organism.  The impression received by me was that a primordial soup created the first chains of amino acids.  This primordial soup originated from a corroboration or rocks and natural heat.

However, the experiment used to prove this postulation, The Miller/Urey Experiment, only created half of the known amino acids involved in living processes.

This experiment, once again, only resulted in half of the amino acids needed for life.  In other words, the theory fails to come from reality.  Surprisingly, in the same environment, the other amino acids cannot form.

The entire process of evolution never holds the potential for substantiated existence.  The scientific method, in truth, never possesses the potential to validate evolutionary beliefs.  Evolution relies on the gods of soulless infinite time, space, and randomness. 

Supposedly old fossils, only present guesses as to their age.  Some dinosaur fossils still possessed red blood cells inside of the bone marrow in perfect form.

Water and rain leech away minerals inside of rocks, changing the dates to be older than they actually are.

Dating techniques prove inaccurate by the presence of tree roots through layers of rock, allegedly millions of years apart...


Nothing of great complexity comes from hand less acts.  Look at these examples:

Computer programs fail to just spontaneously generate.  The same thing applies to biomechanics of living organisms.

No one rips a phone book apart into tiny little pinky nail pieces, throws them up in the air, and hopes for them to regenerate into a full phone book in exact page order.  (All of that with the wind blowing at the same time)

Why are you arguing about whether or not evolution is true?

It was brought up as an example of how complexity can arrive from simplicity. The example of evolution in this instance is being used given that it is true. Not if.

Also your argument about computers not spontaneously generating is misleading. The mechanism for the original computers evolving into what they are today is human intelligence and the mechanism for the simple beginnings of evolution evolve into complex beings is natural selection.

There is no implication of randomness in either example.

The assumption of natural selection, and I stress assumption.  Operates off of a principle performed only by a force of intellect and will.  It stands as the force of logic and creation, which everyone wishes to see in nature.  You cannot confess this force's existence and then deny the existence of a God at the same time.  This act represents the highest treason of logic.

In essence, evolution just stands as an act of plagiarism of the living forces of nature.  That power belongs to the intelligent deity of the universe, not some sort of godless artifact of chance and soulless reason.

Here are some important, simple points.  These examples hold the key to true simplicity, not false contrived explanations which require somersaults of reverse psychology and jumped guns.

Life did not originate from an environment of methane, the oldest rocks on the planet were found to contain oxygen...  Oxygen deep within their innards...

Bacteria could not have developed from natural selection.  The fact that some bacteria possess flagellated structures, while the others possessed pseudopods and cilia violates the rule of natural selection itself.  Something different arose from nothingness, instead of something improved from existing mechanisms.  Those mechanisms just appearing from chance and jumbling of amino acids gives a chance of success not even a trillion to one.

If you put a frog in a blender and place it on puree mode, one possesses all the elements of life... However, even in a million years all those components would not come together to form a frog again.  You are not fooling anyone.

Lets keep the subject on track though.  No, evolution comes from blind belief.  No concrete evidence or experiments exist which prove life evolved out of nowhere.

Miller Urey = Failed
Artificial granite recreation = Failed

Artificial Coal in A few days - Success
Fossil Fuels Made in a few days = Success.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: FE: Not science? or impossible to test?
« Reply #125 on: September 30, 2013, 01:06:37 PM »
I'm not trying to have a discussion about the validity of evolution. Make another topic if you want. As I said, it is an example of how things go from simple to complex. The example was used GIVEN that it is true.

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • +0/-0
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: FE: Not science? or impossible to test?
« Reply #126 on: September 30, 2013, 01:18:56 PM »
What do you mean?  I am still on point completely by saying that it presents a horrifically bad example.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: FE: Not science? or impossible to test?
« Reply #127 on: September 30, 2013, 01:25:52 PM »
What do you mean?  I am still on point completely by saying that it presents a horrifically bad example.

I mean that whether or not you believe in evolution is irrelevant to the comparison. Its like me trying to understand how celestial gears work without believing it. You don't have to believe in it to understand the premise. ie. I don't believe in God but I understand the intelligent design argument.