Dear god... it is
evidenced. I don't care if you deny it or ignore it. That is not my problem. It is yours.
The problem is yours to prove. You haven't.
None were provided. Claiming some were provided is not the same as showing some has been provided.
They have been provided. That is enough showing. You can close your ears but that doesn't mean someone didn't speak to you.
Nope.
We *observe* evolution. Mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence underline the ToE. So much so that just about every single biological scientist accepts it. Those who don't, do not provide a shred of evidence why we should disregard the evidence and provide none of their own. This is amusing but your fail is quite epic and should be embarrassing if you had any inkling of a chance to get pass Morton's demon. I fear he has too tight a hold on you.
You observe small changes. Eugenie Scott cited a teacher whose pupils said after that "definition," "Of course species change with time! You mean that's Evolution?!" Using such a broad definition even an adapting creation qualifies as evolution. Funny that with all the "mountains" of evidence evolutionists can laughingly only provide the same handful of "intermediate" species. Again no shred of evidence has to be provided when you have provided virtually none to support it. You keep shifting the burden of proof, an especially difficult task to then accomplish because it's impossible to disprove a philosophical assumption. My feeling is you are trying to run away from Morton's demon and misusing science in your attempt. Quite amusing.
The burden is yours. My burden has been met by the giants who walked before me, I but humbly follow in their foot steps.
You are not humble at all. The burden remains on the person making the claim until they have met that burden. You haven't and neither has anybody before you.
Oh I see we have moved on from evolution to abiogenesis. You really must specify these things Swa instead of pretending they are all the same.
The Louis Pasteur comment was pure comedy gold.
At least Swa is good for a few laughs. Almost makes me consider taking him off ignore.
Perhaps you should actually read comments to see their context. You really proclaim your stupidity loudly. LMFAO
I mean look at how big homeopathy is and I really think it has the Internet to thank for it.
It has "modern" medicine pumping people full of poison to thank for it.
Force the teaching of science at schools. We need to try to improve people's bullschit filters. It is too late for us but at least save future generations from having to listen to horseschit about thermodynamics.
Agreed. Bring on the academic freedom that evolutionists are trying to thwart with their propaganda.
Perhaps the fact that it is both just another misapplication, and a typically moronic creationist canard? What Pasteur disproved is that things don't just get magicked into existence - be they bacteria or beetles. There's no honest interpretation of his work that leads to the conclusion that simple life could not have arisen from complex non-living materials.
Things just popping up? That's creation, not abiogenesis... or evolution for that matter.
Exactly evolution doesn't happen.
Even simple organisms (which you are yet to define) don't spring up when they feel there is enough sun. Still waiting for that mechanism where complex life and I see now also complex non-living materials would develop...
You mean the law that says modern, complex lifeforms (such as cats or dogs or humans or ferns) cannot come from non-living things fully formed, and says absolutely nothing about the origin of life itself?
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html
The way it's mis-applied here is pretty funny.
Talk about canards. Talkorigins seems pretty on the ball when it comes to pseudoscience. It doesn't disprove a creation in the past that continues to adapt.
...and says nothing about organic compounds giving rise to life at some point early in Earth's history, which is the round hole swa's attempting to whack this square peg into. And you know it. Stop being disingenuous and argumentative just because you want to again leap to the defence of a creationist dim-bulb who got his ass handed to him.
You keep missing the points. Deliberately I think so you can laugh in ignorance at others. It disproves that life can just pop into existence when it "feels" like it so it disproves that the sun is enough to create life. Still waiting for that mechanism...
No, it isn't. It's about spontaneous generation of life, not emergence of life from pre-existing organic material. There's a difference. You don't open your bathroom door in the morning to find an armadillo in the shower. It's still not relevant to the initial emergence of life. Just another misappropriation in creationism's quest to obfuscate.
It's about the emergence of life from pre-existing organic OR non-organic material. It's not about things being "magiced" into existence from nothing as you seem to think. Funny you would talk about non-existent misappropriations but miss your own misappropriations.
You'd know, wouldn't you. I've gone through page after page of patient discourse, and he's still rabbiting the same debunked tripe he was when we started. There are limits to civility.
Still waiting for that mechanism. Without it your claim that it's been debunked is utter tripe. Indeed there are limits to civility so don't know why I'm still trying to be.
Gotta love how they spread the technical bs and outright lies about scientific things with each other at congregations but see this bs as gospel and keep repeating it no matter what anyone else says regardless of their education or that an overwhelming majority of educational institutions across all disciplines disagrees with them, oh wait.. I see a pattern
That sounds remarkably familiar.
Yes. Yes it does. When civility is answered with obtuse incredulity and wilful ignorance some mocking is absolutely in order.
It is then absolutely in order for me to answer your obtuse incredulity and willful ignorance with mocking. Again I implore you to try your mocking face to face. The internet has afforded some ugly trolls too much anonymity.
*sigh*
One question: Is the law of biogenesis at all relevant to a discussion on evolution?
Yes. You extrapolate what you see today to what happened in the past contrary to what the fossil record documents. Yet you ignore that living thing come only from living things and assume that at some point in the past this law was broken. Odd that you would so openly show a bias.
That doesn't automatically validate them.
Of course not. Our observations validate them.
It's more complex because it would be harder to describe.
A pure metal bar is:
x number of Fe atoms in this shape.
A rusted bar is
x number of iron atoms
x number of Oxygen atoms
x% of iron atoms are combined with Oxygen atoms to form x number of iron oxide molecules.
The location of pure iron molecules is here and there and here, the location of iron oxide molecules is there and there.
It requires far more effort to describe the rusted bar, and it's make up is far more complex, comprizing oxides in addition pure metal.
The rusted bar is less ordered, has more entropy, BUT is more complex in make up and to describe.
The same can be said of a universe.
1 x singularity, x energy occupying y space
As the universe expands you have more things to describe and at different energy levels.
More entropy, less ordered, but more 'complex.'
You're using complexity in a different manner. The common usage refers to an intricate arrangement (order). In information theory complexity is thus easier to describe and randomness is the lack of complexity.
None of that speaks to it's complexity. It speaks to energy and entropy.
It does as its complexity is decreasing.
I suggest you figure out how to measure it before you assert relationships.
Would apply equally to species. Speciation is non-existent then.
Because then it's nothing more than your baseless assertion.
Mechanisms are required for things to happen. It's actually baseless to assert something can happen because there's no mechanism to prevent it. Welcome to real life.
Sign up with Google