25 Jun 12
Originally posted by KellyJayAgreed.
If life started from non-living material it had to begin somewhere.
If life started from non-living material it would have been in limited numbers.
Agreed.
If life started from non-living material it would have been limited in its
tolerances to temperature, food supplies, and so on.
By 'limited in its tolerances' do you simply mean 'it would have tolerances' or do you mean its tolerances would be particularly limited, more so than current life forms? If the latter, then I think you need to justify the claim.
If life started from non-living material if it at any point lost anything it needed it would die off.
Agreed.
If life started from non-living material any change that wasn't giving it not only
the ability to go on but to become more adaptive to the enviroment would have
caused it to die off.
Agreed.
Even if life started with trillions for numbers, if they were all in a pond would all
die off if something were to happen to the pond.
Agreed.
The ways to go wrong or bad far outnumber the ways to maintain or improve.
That is a tricky one. I think it all depends on how you measure 'ways'. The ways to fall off a bicycle far outnumber the ways to stay on, yet riding a bicycle is possible.
With a limited number of life to work with even getting off the ground would not
mean it could maintain and improve over time.
Remember the environment is ever changing life does does not always do well
in extremes and if you have something that does not have much in the way of
immunities or tolerance, say good bye life if a change happens that it cannot
handle.
You really have to invent a fairy tale to call that possible.
Kelly
Yet we observe life doing just that all the time. So you are basically saying that for some reason modern life has "much in the way of
immunities or tolerance" but the first life forms did not. How do you justify that difference? So either modern life is "a fairy tale" to you, or you have a really good reason why you think the first life forms were different. Please give more detail as to why you think this is so.
25 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhitehead"Yet we observe life doing just that all the time. So you are basically saying that for some reason modern life has "much in the way of
Agreed.
[b]If life started from non-living material it would have been in limited numbers.
Agreed.
If life started from non-living material it would have been limited in its
tolerances to temperature, food supplies, and so on.
By 'limited in its tolerances' do you simply mean 'it would have tolerances' or do you mean its tolerances wou ...[text shortened]... st life forms were different. Please give more detail as to why you think this is so.[/b]
immunities or tolerance" but the first life forms did not. How do you justify that difference? So either modern life is "a fairy tale" to you, or you have a really good reason why you think the first life forms were different. Please give more detail as to why you think this is so."
So is that by design or not?
Kelly
25 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadRiding a bicycle requires intelligence. So are you admitting the first life forms required intellegence?
Agreed.
[b]If life started from non-living material it would have been in limited numbers.
Agreed.
If life started from non-living material it would have been limited in its
tolerances to temperature, food supplies, and so on.
By 'limited in its tolerances' do you simply mean 'it would have tolerances' or do you mean its tolerances wou ...[text shortened]... st life forms were different. Please give more detail as to why you think this is so.[/b]
25 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadLogically a design requires a DESIGNER. A computer programmer should know that. Or maybe, you are not a computer programmer, but a liar. 😏
Does it matter? The fact is that it happens, and we see it happening yet you claim one must believe in a fairy tale before accepting that it can happen.
26 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou cannot claim your view is true just because you see life around you.
Does it matter? The fact is that it happens, and we see it happening yet you claim one must believe in a fairy tale before accepting that it can happen.
Can you get here from there has not been answered, only asked.
Kelly
26 Jun 12
Originally posted by KellyJayAs always, you descend into vagueness and denial whenever we get into the details. This is indicative of someone who "cling(s) to it no matter what questions are put to them".
You cannot claim your view is true just because you see life around you.
Can you get here from there has not been answered, only asked.
Kelly
This is not about whether or not I 'claim my view is true'. This is about whether or not your reasons for denying the possibility of evolution are valid and fit with observations. You claimed that life could not have survived in its early stages because of harsh environments and a requirement to be able to adapt to that environment exactly, something you claim is highly improbable.
I have pointed out that life in the modern day seems to do quite well in just about any environment and we see plenty of instances of life surviving. Yet if your argument were valid then we would expect all life to die out fairly quickly. It does not. Therefore there must be some difference between modern life and ancient life that you have identified. So what is that difference?
26 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't change the subject I view things differently than you do so my responses
Then why do you behave as if you think you are wrong? Why whenever I try to get into the details of an issue do you try your best to change the subject?
are sometimes not what you think they should be. It is no different than you do
to me.
Kelly
26 Jun 12
Originally posted by KellyJayYet you consistently refuse to answer most of my questions. If you go back through the thread you will see I have asked you many questions which remain unanswered. I realize we view things differently so I ask questions to obtain clarification, yet you do not answer them but rather try to change the subject or descend into vagueness.
I don't change the subject I view things differently than you do so my responses
are sometimes not what you think they should be. It is no different than you do
to me.
Kelly
26 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat sometimes has more to do with time than my willingness to answer. I don't
Yet you consistently refuse to answer most of my questions. If you go back through the thread you will see I have asked you many questions which remain unanswered. I realize we view things differently so I ask questions to obtain clarification, yet you do not answer them but rather try to change the subject or descend into vagueness.
have the time I use to here so I'll start reading your post answer some part of it,
copy the part I'm talking to and leave. If you want me to hit a subject don't let it
fall off out of our discussion. I'm sorry I don't always address your full posts it isn't
that I'm trying to avoid you. My job and hours have changed I'm putting in much
longer nights now instead of a normal day shift. I cannot promise I'll be able to
always get to your full posts I do promise to try harder on points you really want
me to address.
Kelly
26 Jun 12
Originally posted by KellyJayWell maybe I am misjudging you. Its just that you have always seemed to ignore most questions put to you throughout our discussions on these forums - its not a new phenomena. Maybe that's just your style.
That sometimes has more to do with time than my willingness to answer.
Can you start by explaining what difference you see between early life and present life that would cause early life to fail where present day life seems to thrive?
26 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe differences between early and present life.
Well maybe I am misjudging you. Its just that you have always seemed to ignore most questions put to you throughout our discussions on these forums - its not a new phenomena. Maybe that's just your style.
Can you start by explaining what difference you see between early life and present life that would cause early life to fail where present day life seems to thrive?
Present life is all we really know is real, the "early life" with respect to the first
cell and having it change over time is more of a belief than something I'd call
a reality. If I were to grant that it could actually occur where life started
without any outside help I'd still back off from saying it could stay alive, thrive,
and get more functionally complex (single cell becoming something more) again
without any help from the outside.
Something so small in a very small area that allows it to maintain itself could
at any time change with drastic swings in temperature and other life ending
events that could cut off food supply or anything else required for life, it
happens now on our planet where life basically thrives in its niches.
I don't always answer questions for the reasons I've stated. I don't have all
day to come here and when I do its hit and miss and of late it’s been more
misses than hits.
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
26 Jun 12
Originally posted by KellyJayNo answer needed, but would you not agree that that the occurrence of a low-probability event, presented with enough opportunities to occur, becomes more probable. So, it seems more robust an objection could be mounted based on the idea that 'outside help' is essential in some way.
The differences between early and present life.
Present life is all we really know is real, the "early life" with respect to the first
cell and having it change over time is more of a belief than something I'd call
a reality. If I were to grant that it could actually occur where life started
without any outside help I'd still back off from saying it c ...[text shortened]... here and when I do its hit and miss and of late it’s been more
misses than hits.
Kelly
'Outside help' might of course consist of design of, say, a universe which eventually cools to the point that molecules can form.
People talk about the Goldilocks region around a star, but the very existence of the star could be the design element, leaving the rest to statistical probability that at least some planets will be in the Goldilocks region of some stars.
Intentional design can always be imputed, even when those wild life-ending swings occur. It needn't always be pro-life. Most of it appears to be anti-life.
26 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou can't tell me your butt hole wasn't designed so you could stick your head up in there.
As always, you descend into vagueness and denial whenever we get into the details. This is indicative of someone who "cling(s) to it no matter what questions are put to them".
This is not about whether or not I 'claim my view is true'. This is about whether or not your reasons for denying the possibility of evolution are valid and fit with observations. ...[text shortened]... e between modern life and ancient life that you have identified. So what is that difference?