All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!

Originally posted by PBE6
Abiogenesis and evolution are two different subject that describe two different processes, and make different predictions.

Give us your objections in point form, and we can deal with them one at a time. If one objection focuses on abiogenesis, we can discuss that. If another focuses on evolution, we can discuss that as well, separately.

Getting the things you need to make a pie requires you to gather the
items necessary, then you start mixing the ingredients to make the pie.
I just happen to believe that your gathering the ingredients is part of
the process just as much as mixing them. If you do not get the parts
together; you do not have what is required to mix to make the pie.
With evolution its beginning is just as important as the middle and
end, if you don't over come those things that need to be over come at
the beginning of the process it doesn't matter what can be done later.
Unless you want me to accept that you can get evolution without
abiogenesis, is that what your saying?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
My point, you claim there wasn't a before with the singularity, yet you
demand one for the designer, it is a double standard.
Kelly

PBE6 didn´t say that, he said all non-supernatural designers raise that question. Which they do - there is a limit to how much complexity you can spontaneously create all in one go.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I been very clear about the topic, it is the process. Now if you are
done bringing God into this we can get back to it.
Kelly

You never are clear, you are the very prototype of fuzzy logic.
Now you used the g-word, don't, go to the spiritual forum if you want to use the g-word.

Originally posted by DeepThought
PBE6 didn´t say that, he said all non-supernatural designers raise that question. Which they do - there is a limit to how much complexity you can spontaneously create all in one go.

Really a limit, where did you get that from?
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You never are clear, you are the very prototype of fuzzy logic.
Now you used the g-word, don't, go to the spiritual forum if you want to use the g-word.

I would almost be willing to be in all of the discussions you interject
yourself, you more than likely only talk about the topic 10% of the
time, the rest you go after people or side issues.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I would almost be willing to be in all of the discussions you interject
yourself, you more than likely only talk about the topic 10% of the
time, the rest you go after people or side issues.
Kelly

But why are you so eager to discuss intelligent desing in a Science Forum? Yea, yea, I know your answer "I can talk about anything anywhere I want!", I've heard it before. But since intelligent design has nothing to do with science then why not go to the Spiritual Forum where it belongs? I won't interfere there, becuase intellligent desing *is* a part of your religion.

"I can talk about anything anywhere I want." Do you give me the same right?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really a limit, where did you get that from?
Kelly

I´m talking about things popping into existence due to quantum fluctuations - with that type of creation you don´t expect much structure. With abiogenesis you already have a planet, and the initial conditions in terms of molecular structure and so on we have in mind are not particularly complicated either. A designer has to pop into existence fully conscious, unless you have some notion of them developing somehow.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But why are you so eager to discuss intelligent desing in a Science Forum? Yea, yea, I know your answer "I can talk about anything anywhere I want!", I've heard it before. But since intelligent design has nothing to do with science then why not go to the Spiritual Forum where it belongs? I won't interfere there, becuase intellligent desing *is* a part of ...[text shortened]... r religion.

"I can talk about anything anywhere I want." Do you give me the same right?

Why don't you just go away, reason you don't want to! I do not answer
to you on why and where I post, it isn't any of your business either one
way or another! I'm very focused upon processes it is something I
have to look at every day. Seeing how something is built, knowing the
effort it takes to make something that is very complex and how the
little things can take something and ruin it, is my motivation. The parts
of the discussion that are faith driven I don't bring to the table, you
do and a few others here. I don't care how much time everyone thinks
passed with the universe, if something cannot be done, you can add
billions of years to the process and it still cannot be done. You without
fail bring in my religion to this discussion, I will answer those types of
questions to anyone who asks, but it isn't my focus here, because you
cannot prove a special event occured through God, it doesn't matter
if the Bible says this or that if you reject the Bible it adds nothing to
the discussion. Yet you bring it up as if I was attempting to make
points using the Bible here, your a hypocrit in that respect, since you
are always bringing up religion and God and crying when others do.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why don't you just go away, reason you don't want to! I do not answer
to you on why and where I post, it isn't any of your business either one
way or another! I'm very focused upon processes it is something I
have to look at every day. Seeing how something is built, knowing the
effort it takes to make something that is very complex and how the
little t ...[text shortened]... ct, since you
are always bringing up religion and God and crying when others do.
Kelly

All I say is that you fit better in the Spiritual Forum. Hey, you bring up the intelligent designer her, time after time, not me. The place for creationism is in the Spiritual Forum, don't you see?

You don't know much about science, but yet you think you know it all. (Your pet theory about the dinos, remember?) You don't listen to people who know tons more than you do, you have much to learn, but you cannot think outside you little box, so what's the use?

As long you talk about science, and not anti-science, your are quite welcome here. Your choice.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
All I say is that you fit better in the Spiritual Forum. Hey, you bring up the intelligent designer her, time after time, not me. The place for creationism is in the Spiritual Forum, don't you see?

You don't know much about science, but yet you think you know it all. (Your pet theory about the dinos, remember?) You don't listen to people who know tons ...[text shortened]... long you talk about science, and not anti-science, your are quite welcome here. Your choice.

As I have pointed out to you design does not automatically mean
God, you are the one that carries the conversation that way not I!
If I start a thread on creation the spiritual forum would be the
proper venue I agree, the issue you seem to have is you cannot
disconnect my personal beliefs from topics which in truth has
nothing to do with the spiritual unless you push it that way. I’m
perfectly content to just stick to process and probability over your
views of who may or may not be behind a design process process.
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
I´m talking about things popping into existence due to quantum fluctuations - with that type of creation you don´t expect much structure. With abiogenesis you already have a planet, and the initial conditions in terms of molecular structure and so on we have in mind are not particularly complicated either. A designer has to pop into existence fully conscious, unless you have some notion of them developing somehow.

"...- with that type of creation you don´t expect much structure."

That type of creation, where did everything come from that started
reacting so we got the Big Bang process? If you wish to stay on point
that the Big Bang was the beginning or the singularity was the
beginning, my question remains, before that what? If the answer is
nothing, you are than suggesting everything came from nothing, and
exactly how did that happen? You would be suspending reason to
actually attempt to defend that position, you have to just be mum
about it, avoid the conversation other wise you find you have the same
issue someone with design has! Both groups assume something that
is already part of reality acts upon something else within reality.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"...- with that type of creation you don´t expect much structure."

That type of creation, where did everything come from that started
reacting so we got the Big Bang process? If you wish to stay on point
that the Big Bang was the beginning or the singularity was the
beginning, my question remains, before that what? If the answer is
nothing, you are t ...[text shortened]... ume something that
is already part of reality acts upon something else within reality.
Kelly

There is no before the big bang. Energy conservation is a consequence of the homogeneity of time. Time is not homogeneous at the big bang. So energy does not need to be conserved there. Cosmic inflation gives a method where additional energy can be produced in truly vast quantities, by freezing the negative energy debt into the vacuum.

Quantum fluctuations are known to happen. The Casimir effect gives experimental validation of this. Quantum electro-dynamics has been tested to one part in 10^15. These are reliable theories. Inflation theory has some problems with fine tuning, but it is generally accepted as the best available theory to explain the homogeneity and isotropy on large scales in the universe.

You are imagining a logical problem when there isn´t one, The creation of the universe from nothing has been explained in terms of laboratory testable physics. The inflationary phase (which prevents the fluctuation from vanishing again) is not laboratory tested as it happens at an energy scale not accessible to accelerators (even LHC), nevertheless it is not controversial. There is no fundamental physics problem with the spontaneous creation of universes.

There are fundamental problems with the instantaneous spontaneous creation of highly structured entities where there is no way to prevent the energy needed for their mass to be taken back.

Originally posted by DeepThought
There is no before the big bang. Energy conservation is a consequence of the homogeneity of time. Time is not homogeneous at the big bang. So energy does not need to be conserved there. Cosmic inflation gives a method where additional energy can be produced in truly vast quantities, by freezing the negative energy debt into the vacuum.

Quantum flu ...[text shortened]... red entities where there is no way to prevent the energy needed for their mass to be taken back.

"There is no before the big bang."

Yea right.
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
There is no before the big bang. Energy conservation is a consequence of the homogeneity of time. Time is not homogeneous at the big bang. So energy does not need to be conserved there. Cosmic inflation gives a method where additional energy can be produced in truly vast quantities, by freezing the negative energy debt into the vacuum.

Quantum flu ...[text shortened]... red entities where there is no way to prevent the energy needed for their mass to be taken back.

You either have something from nothing or you have something
that is eternal to deal with.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"There is no before the big bang."

Yea right.
Kelly

You don't believe in BigBang, then how can you have any opinion (it's not knowledge for sure) about it?