![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Bob Green
83p432 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0
12 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - Evolution and blood. · 0 replies · +4 points
Having established the fact that abiogenesis is proven to be mathematically impossible due to the 2LOT… Apart from the fact that the 2LOT would still be a demonstrably insurmountable force working against the amoeba to man progression
No such finding has ever been established.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that, in a closed system entropy, or energy that is unavailable for useful work, must always increase. A closed system is one that neither gains nor loses energy from any outside source. The Earth does have an outside source of energy, it’s called the sun. Therefore the Second Law does not apply either to abiogenesis of to evolution.
It never ceases to amaze me how eager creationists are to display their ignorance by trotting out this tired old canard time after time.
Incidentally, nobody thinks that amoebae evolved into men, or any other mammal, we share a common ancestor but are on completely different evolutionary paths.
.., how does a Creator fit into an atheist’s reasoning?</>
An atheist, by definition, does not believe in the existence of God or Gods. Therefore notions of a Creator are irrelevant.
I admit that we have been unable to duplicate abiogenesis in the lab but give us a few thousand centuries and we will
Wehave only been investigating abiogenesis for a short time. We have several promising leads, but much work needs to be done.
However, lets assume for the moment that we never find out how life arose. This would only mean that we do not understand the origin of life; it would not, in any way, be evidence for the Christian God, or any other divine Creator.
12 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - Evolution and blood. · 5 replies · +6 points
Doesn't that just completely sum up the creationist mindset?
Yes indees, but not quite as succinctly as:-
In summary: I am an ignorant clod and proud to remain so.
12 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - Evolution and blood. · 0 replies · +9 points
The whole point that Ray is trying to make in his post is that the blood clotting system in humans, and other mammals could not have evolved because it is irreducibly complex; hence an ‘Intelligent Designer’, or a God.
Kenneth Miller describes a possible scenario describing how this system could have evolved, thus refuting Comfort’s argument.
We have abundant evidence that evolution has occurred, and that every organism on earth is related to every other. Therefore it is reasonable to posit an evolutionary path that gave rise to the blood clotting system. It is entirely possible that, with new evidence, a different evolutionary path could be found in the future. This is why Miller’s paper, in common with all scientific writings, uses the language that it does, to allow for the discovery of new evidence in the future.
We have no evidence of an ‘Intelligent Designer’, only ancient writings and faith. Therefore, until and unless such evidence is presented, it is not reasonable to posit that living things are supernaturally designed.
12 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - Evolution and blood. · 0 replies · +9 points
Yes, the bacteria was able to adapt through a spontaneous mutation in response to its enviornment and the new existence of nylon
This change, and the ability of the bacteria to pass it on, was due to a change in the DNA of the bacteria. In other words, it was due to a change of the allele frequency in the population of bacteria.
This is evolution by definition.
...but it still is a bacteria.
Yes, of course it is. What did you expect? That a dog, cat or some other complex life form was going to crawl out of the test tube?
(I’ve a nasty suspicion, given your woeful lack of understanding of evolution, that the answer to that question is ‘Yes’.)
If this is your argument for the evidence of evolution it is an epic fail.
Ray’s point, such as it was, is that complex systems cannot evolve. This is an example, observed both in the laboratory and in the field, of a complex system that has evolved.
The only epic fail is on Ray’s part.
12 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - “Your religion i... · 0 replies · +4 points
City officials in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. say Chuck and Stephanie Fromm are in violation of municipal code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit.
I have no idea what the ordinances passed by the City Council of San Juan Capistrano are. However, from your description it appears that they apply to all organizations, not just Christian ones. I would guess that the aim is to prevent a nuisance in a residential neighbourhood; when a meeting breaks up it is liable to be noisy, if this happens late at night this could cause a nuisance.
No matter, the rule, good or bad, has been enacted by the citizens of San Juan Capistrano. They apply to Bible study groups as well as everyone else. Why did these people not apply for a permit, and thus avoid the fine?
Do they arrogantly think, just because they are a Christian organization, that they are above the law?
Apparently the answer is Yes. It’s an incorrect answer, and it has cost them a well-deserved $300 fine.
12 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - “Your religion i... · 0 replies · +7 points
How about "The Big Bang Never Happened"?
The book, "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner (with whom I am not immediately familiar) puts forward his alternative to the Big Bang theory. This is not merely his right, if he has found new evidence it is his duty to publish this so that other scientists can check his findings, and if they are found to be valid, our knowledge may be increased accordingly.
Scientific findings are not religious dogma, if new findings are valid they are incorporated into our knowledge (although this may take some time).
12 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - “Your religion i... · 0 replies · +9 points
The most recent was the long-discredited Miller-Ulrey experiment.
The Miller-Urey (not Ulrey) experiment tested the hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth were conducive to the production of organic compounds from inorganic sources. The experiment was performed in 1952 and used the best knowledge available at that time of Earth’s early atmosphere.
It was an experiment to investigate life’s origins, that is Abiogenesis. It had nothing to do with Evolution.
The only part ‘intelligent design’ played was to reproduce the experimental conditions. The chemicals reacted naturally under those conditions, with no input from the experimenters.
It has not been discredited (except in the minds of AiG and their ilk.) On the contrary, after Miller’s death in 2007 sealed flasks from the original experiment were examined and even more amino acids were found than were originally reported.
In other words, the experiment was more successful than originally thought.
12 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - “Your religion i... · 0 replies · +7 points
…|I will continue to ask for evidence for color over and over and over and over again, just so I can reject it over and over and over and over again."
But we have evidence that electromagnetic radiation comes in all wavelengths. In the visible spectrum these wavelengths produce the sensation in our eyes of different colours.
Why would you need to ask for this evidence explaining colour more than once?
Why would you reject it even once?
12 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - “Your religion i... · 0 replies · +11 points
Evolution, because of Natural Selection, is not chance.
12 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - The Backyard Boys are ... · 0 replies · +1 points
People may associate burning or destroying books with the Nazi's but I associate it hateful stunts like the Terry Jones Koran burning. I don't want to be on the same level as that crazy preacher and his followers.
I don’t want to be associated with either Terry Jones or the Nazi book burners.
I think you have to be part of the older generation to have images of Nazi book burnings, it's no longer a common association. :)
And there is the difference. I am 63 and grew up in post-war London. My parents, who both lived through the London blitz and the V weapons, often regaled me with stories of the Nazis, and their book-burnings.
But we both agree it was a bad decision.
So do I!
Contraption