09 Jul 12
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, I can not tell you exactly. But it seems I have a much better idea than you do. Yet you claim to know exactly what was not possible, but are apparently unable to explain how.
My point was that what was and is are two different things, you cannot even tell me what was here and what was required in what amounts.
Life adds to what is here, the requirements and conditions seem to be whatever you want them to be now to make your theory work.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying I make up what conditions there were in the past? If so, no, I do not. Are you saying I am claiming conditions were identical in the past? If so, no, I am not.
Now if we supposedly gain some knew knowledge about the distant past, we just change what we
think happened to make the theory work, much like what the American Supreme Court did with Obama Care they changed the law to make it work, people change their requirements to meet the data, since that is the case the
theory can never be wrong no matter how many times it is.
Kelly
And your actual argument here is?
Yes, new data will change what we think happened. How does this in any way detract from the possibility that something happened?
09 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayChance is a matter of time... something that is only .0000001% likely will happen, given enough time.
I get that a reasoned explanation isn't one that can be brought forward so the
discussion instead was lowered to just belittle. Where chance really cannot be
given credit your left with something that needs or requires a guiding force.
Kelly
09 Jul 12
Originally posted by KellyJaySo your earlier claims that all life is in a special balance is being retracted?
Balance can be distrupted when there is plenty of life to take its place;
however, that is not true when there is very little period.
It is just as true. The only difference is that if all of the 'very little' life gets wiped out then there is no more life. All we know is that that did not happen (with the current life). There may have been abiogenesis multiple times, I don't know.
With the amount of life limited to what was supposed to be here at its very beginning the
need to not have anything bad happen to it would be all important.
Can you state what this special limit was at its very beginning? You keep referring to it but don't seem to have anything particular in mind. I suspect you haven't really thought about it.
We see that now all over the place where there is life bad things happen all the time and we lose life, if anything were to happen when it just started like that it would have been the end of it.
Correct. But we see life even to this day flourishing from a single cell into large colonies covering vast areas. This is an identical situation. So it is possible.
The real question is: where did the first life form arise and how hostile and unstable was its environment. I don't know and you don't know. It might have been a friendly stable environment that enabled the single life form to multiply into millions then billions etc in a fairly short space of time. An algae cell for example could colonize a whole Ocean in a few years. As soon as the first life form spread out it would start diversifying. This would not only enable some of its forms to withstand small changes to the environment, but would cover a large enough area that changes to parts of the environment would not affect all the living entities.
09 Jul 12
Originally posted by tomtom232You have no idea if what you think or say could have, or wouild have happened
Chance is a matter of time... something that is only .0000001% likely will happen, given enough time.
was a real chance! You have no idea if what you say could have happen, or
would have happen was even possible! So saying time is your friend is just
false, except in a fairy tale where you get to say what was here as if you knew,
what was here in what quanities as if you knew, what was put together when
as if you knew. Between the ears is the only place where the numbers always
happen to support the way evolutionist say things would have or could have
happen, and when those numbers are shown wrong a new set of numbers are
put together since if is a belief that must be true for the true believers.
Kelly
09 Jul 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI told you what was here now was not the same thing as what was here
No, I can not tell you exactly. But it seems I have a much better idea than you do. Yet you claim to know exactly what was not possible, but are apparently unable to explain how.
[b]Life adds to what is here, the requirements and conditions seem to be whatever you want them to be now to make your theory work.
I don't understand what you are saying ...[text shortened]... think happened. How does this in any way detract from the possibility that something happened?[/b]
according to evolutionary believers, you admit that is so too. So saying what
you see here proves what could have happened back then does not ring true
it is apples and oranges. What we do know is if you a very limited supply of
anything and that supply get destroyed you have nothing. So if life started
and that is a huge "if" being able to maintain itself, being able to improve when
the enviroment was so nasty is a fairy tale, and you have a belief system you
will defend because as a true believer you have no choice in the matter.
Kelly
10 Jul 12
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, I do not admit it as a blanket claim. I admit there were differences but there were also similarities. There was water, there were rocks, there were oceans. Many environments that exist today existed then and were almost identical.
I told you what was here now was not the same thing as what was here
according to evolutionary believers, you admit that is so too.
So saying what you see here proves what could have happened back then does not ring true
it is apples and oranges.
No it isn't. The examples I give share the same properties that you claim render them impossible. That there are other differences is irrelevant.
What we do know is if you a very limited supply of anything and that supply get destroyed you have nothing.
Agreed. Yet as I have pointed out over and over, limited supplies of life are known to multiply.
So if life started and that is a huge "if" being able to maintain itself, being able to improve when the enviroment was so nasty is a fairy tale,
What was so nasty about the environment? I keep asking you this and you are yet to respond. What do you know about the environment then that I do not?
and you have a belief system you will defend because as a true believer you have no choice in the matter.
Kelly
I defend it based on the evidence. You criticize it with zero evidence. Who is the true believer? If you claim I am in error then you should be able to point out my errors as I have pointed out yours. Instead the best you can do it keep claiming that I will never change my beliefs and that its all a fairy tale, yet you have no actual argument to that effect its just wishful thinking on your part.
Tell me something about the environment in the past and tell me why life would have failed to survive in it. Remember that we see plenty of examples of life surviving in the here and now, so you need to explain what was different. Your 'limited supply' argument is clearly invalid as I have pointed out that limited supplies do not always die out even today. You have to do better than that. Repeating it over and over wont make it more valid.
16 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead"No, I do not admit it as a blanket claim. I admit there were differences but there were also similarities. There was water, there were rocks, there were oceans. Many environments that exist today existed then and were almost identical. "
No, I do not admit it as a blanket claim. I admit there were differences but there were also similarities. There was water, there were rocks, there were oceans. Many environments that exist today existed then and were almost identical.
[b]So saying what you see here proves what could have happened back then does not ring true
it is apples and oranges. today. You have to do better than that. Repeating it over and over wont make it more valid.
[/b]Life produces several things like food for example, byproducts of photosynthesis,
and other things that wouldn’t be prevalent in a pre-life environment. You shouldn’t
see the amount of oxygen we see today without forests and so on. I don’t know
how you can say the environments would be anything but different due to the lack
of life. A difference is a difference, you cannot say the oceans would have had the
same properties as you see in them today due to the deadness it would have had
because there wasn’t any life what so ever in them producing all the things that
ocean life produces, almost identical isn't identical.
Kelly
16 Jul 12
Originally posted by KellyJayI know it isn't identical, but it is similar enough that we can say whether or not life would have survived in such environments. For example we know of plenty of life forms that can survive without oxygen.
... almost identical isn't identical.
I still maintain that some parts of the ocean would have been as good as identical.
You are claiming that the environment would have somehow been harsher for life, but have given no details to back up this claim. How do you know it wasn't actually more conducive for life? For example life actually prefers warmer temperatures than our current ones, so when the earth was warmer the environment would have been preferable as far as early life was concerned.
17 Jul 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think you have to write a fairy tale to say you know it was close enough to
I know it isn't identical, but it is similar enough that we can say whether or not life would have survived in such environments. For example we know of plenty of life forms that can survive without oxygen.
I still maintain that some parts of the ocean would have been as good as identical.
You are claiming that the environment would have somehow bee ...[text shortened]... arth was warmer the environment would have been preferable as far as early life was concerned.
allow for life to start, to allow life maintain itself, to allow life to progress into
every more complex living systems over time. How much life started when
in the beginning of life when it moved from non-living material into living
creatures? Where was this done, a pond, a lake, a river, a piece of mud?
What type of tempertures were required and so on? You don't know, you just
believe it happened some where, some how, under some conditions that could
allow for all you think happened. If the data all of a sudden stops supporting
your current fairly tale you change the tale not the belief.
Kelly
17 Jul 12
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy? Why do you think that one would not be able to determine what the environment on earth was like prior to life? The evidence is all around us. Why does one need a fairy tale to see it? And most importantly, why are you so sure you know what it wasn't? Where are you getting your information from?
I think you have to write a fairy tale to say you know it was close enough to
allow for life to start, to allow life maintain itself, to allow life to progress into
every more complex living systems over time.
How much life started when in the beginning of life when it moved from non-living material into living
creatures? Where was this done, a pond, a lake, a river, a piece of mud? What type of tempertures were required and so on? You don't know, you just believe it happened some where, some how, under some conditions that could
allow for all you think happened.
Correct. Do you have a specific problem with that?
If the data all of a sudden stops supporting your current fairly tale you change the tale not the belief.
Kelly
First you say I do not have specific knowledge of how it happened, then you claim I believe in a specific fairy tale (despite having provided no reasoning whatsoever for calling it a fairy tale).
And I do not see the relevance of the fact that I change my understanding of the past based on the evidence. How does this in any way influence the probability that life could have arisen or survived in the ancient environment?
Do you actually have any arguments that support your original claims? Or are you finally going to admit that your belief on the matter are entirely religious and have nothing whatsoever to do with science and the actual evidence?
You originally seemed to be very sure about what the environment was like or was not like but have yet to give even a hint of details as to what you think it must have been like. I think you simply have no idea what it was like. Yet with this total lack of evidence you have concluded that life could not possibly have survived in such an environment (that you know nothing about). Where is your conclusion really coming from?
17 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think you have to write a fairy tale to say you know it was close enough to
Why? Why do you think that one would not be able to determine what the environment on earth was like prior to life? The evidence is all around us. Why does one need a fairy tale to see it? And most importantly, why are you so sure you know what it wasn't? Where are you getting your information from?
[b]How much life started when in the beginning of lif uch an environment (that you know nothing about). Where is your conclusion really coming from?
allow for life to start, to allow life maintain itself, to allow life to progress into
every more complex living systems over time.
"Why? Why do you think that one would not be able to determine what the environment on earth was like prior to life? The evidence is all around us."[/b]
I think you can come up with several ways you can look at the evidence all around
us, getting it right...you will never know. You can say this makes me think it looked
like this, or that makes me think this looked like something else...it really don't
matter how you paint it you are giving your best guess at describing the way things
were. It maybe that many would agree with you (which does not mean your right)
then later something else comes along and you have to change your views. Then
it all boils down to once again the theory will change to match the data no matter
what the data says the theory is true and we will find a way to prove that with
every thing we see.
You don't have a way to disprove it and you don't want to.
Kelly
17 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd what is wrong with a best guess? When our 'best guess' is supported by mountains of evidence, then what is wrong with it? It certainly doesn't warrant the label 'fairy tale'.
I think you can come up with several ways you can look at the evidence all around
us, getting it right...you will never know. You can say this makes me think it looked
like this, or that makes me think this looked like something else...it really don't
matter how you paint it you are giving your best guess at describing the way things
were.
Then it all boils down to once again the theory will change to match the data no matter what the data says the theory is true and we will find a way to prove that with every thing we see.
First you say 'the theory will change to match the data', then you say 'no matter what the data says the theory is true'. Those are two contradictory statements. Which one do you really mean?
You don't have a way to disprove it and you don't want to.
If the data doesn't match, then it is disproved, hence the need to change the theory.
But I still fail to see where you are going with this. How does this have anything to do with your personal conviction that you have sufficient evidence to conclude that the environment at the time was wholly unsuitable for life? You made a claim that life could not possibly have survived back then. What my theories on the matter are should not be relevant. It is what your theories are and what data you have to back them up that counts. Either that, or you admit that you have no idea whether or not life would have survived and you are the one who made up a fairy tale.
17 Jul 12
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's fantastic, you have contradicted yourself within the space of a single sentence!
... Then it all boils down to once again the theory will change to match the data no matter what the data says the theory is true and we will find a way to prove that with every thing we see...
Kelly
"the theory will change to match the data " is the aim of science and is the best way we have of finding things out and understanding the real world..
"no matter what the data says the theory is true and we will find a way to prove that with every thing we see." is the way of religion and prevents understanding of the real world.
Sorry to butt in there.
--- Penguin.
17 Jul 12
Originally posted by PenguinSorry? Are you kidding? dont sell yourself short like that.
That's fantastic, you have contradicted yourself within the space of a single sentence!
"the theory will change to match the data " is the aim of science and is the best way we have of finding things out and understanding the real world..
"[i]no matter what the data says the theory is true and we will find a way to prove that with every t ...[text shortened]... on and prevents understanding of the real world.
Sorry to butt in there.
--- Penguin.
your posts have been a shining , rational light on this much muddied forum.
Keep it up Penguin. You are one of the best here 😉
18 Jul 12
Absolutely, Natural Selection. And absolutely Evolutionists appropriate ID, because ID has really existed since 1859, amply explained by Darwin's "other" theory, Sexual Selection through Mate Choice -- the idea shown throughout nature that 'males compete, females choose.' Both theories are indispensable to understanding life on earth, and the curious will be enriched by becoming familiar with them. I am a believer in ID if, by "Intelligent Designer" one means our own ancestors choosing the best mates with which to reproduce over numberless generations. It is inspiring to me to know that the genetic material that comprises me is the best possible stuff, the DNA that has survived to this day in an unending river of life.