[_ Old Earth _] Just curious..

[zeke]

And yet Barbarian has conclusively shown that either Dr Patterson was in error about what he said or else has been misrepresented by whatever secondary source you used.

But he hasn't proven anything and Patterson was a respected Darwinist - he was not a liar as you suggest and he didn't misrepresent Gould. Shame on you.

I also wonder why you are so selective in the parts of posts that you choose to respond to, when so much of those posts pertain directly to your comments and assertions

There is no reason to respond to that which has been responded to. Can you or can you not provide the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor - on this thread?

 

[lordkalvan]

You have two choices my friend - spontaneous generation (an absurdity) or special creation. You choose the impossible - why?

Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation . . . . One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. ~ Dr. George Wald (1967 Nobel Prize)​

What part of 'I don't know' and the remainder of my post did you fail to understand, my friend?

Wrong - it is a statement of religion based on unproven assumptions.

Please show how it is wrong, how it is 'a statement of religion' and how it is 'based on unproven assumptions'.

 

[lordkalvan]

But he hasn't proven anything and Patterson was a respected Darwinist - he was not a liar as you suggest and he didn't misrepresent Gould. Shame on you.

X was mistaken/misrepresented does not mean the same as X is a liar.

There is no reason to respond to that which has been responded to. Can you or can you not provide the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor - on this thread?

Please show where you have responded appropriately to what you claim to have responded to. Please show, for example, where you have responded to requests for clarifications of your exclusions as evidential of Darwininan mythology, fallacious rhetoric, pseudoscience, etc, so that your request for evidence about the evolutionary relationship amongst primates can be presented in terms acceptable to you.

 

[zeke]

What part of 'I don't know' and the remainder of my post did you fail to understand, my friend?

Are we friends now? There are only two choices - spontaneous generation or special creation. Which one is your choice?

Please show how it is wrong, how it is 'a statement of religion' and how it is 'based on unproven assumptions'.

Well, you have never proven your assumptions but you believe via faith.

 

[zeke]

X was mistaken/misrepresented does not mean the same as X is a liar.

Patterson was not mistaken and his words remain true.

Please show where you have responded appropriately to what you claim to have responded to.

Been there-done that. Try to keep up.

 

[lordkalvan]

Are we friends now?

This would be more likely to be the case if you showed some willingness to engage positively with requests for clarifications and answers to reasonable questions arising from your posts.

There are only two choices - spontaneous generation or special creation. Which one is your choice?

Again, what parts of 'I don't know' and the remainder of my comments are you having trouble understanding?

Well, you have never proven your assumptions but you believe via faith.

This does not answer my request for clarifications of what you meant when you made the same assertion in a slightly different format.

 

[zeke]

Again, what parts of 'I don't know' and the remainder of my comments are you having trouble understanding?

Do you consider spontaneous generation an absurdity? Can you or can you not provide the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor - on this thread?

 

[lordkalvan]

Patterson was not mistaken and his words remain true.

And yet Barbarian has demonstrated the contrary. How do you explain this?

Been there-done that. Try to keep up.

But clearly not to the request for clarifications offered as an example of this failure.

 

[zeke]

This does not answer my request for clarifications of what you meant when you made the same assertion in a slightly different format.

To which slightly different format do you refer?

 

[lordkalvan]

Do you consider spontaneous generation an absurdity?

Please tell me what part of 'I don't know' and the rest of my comments you are having trouble with.

Can you or can you not provide the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor - on this thread?

Please provide the requested clarifications and I will do my best to answer you in terms acceptable to yourself as evidential.

 

[zeke]

And yet Barbarian has demonstrated the contrary. How do you explain this?

I don't try to explain Barbarian - but you are welcome to take on that job. Do you think Patterson misrepresented Gould and the American Museum? If you do please explain why.

 

[lordkalvan]

To which slightly different format do you refer?

Free, for your understanding, I hope you can see what I meant in my reply to you.

 

[zeke]

Please tell me what part of 'I don't know' and the rest of my comments you are having trouble with.

Surely you have an opinion - give it a shot. Do you consider spontaneous generation an absurdity?

 

[lordkalvan]

Surely you have an opinion - give it a shot. Do you consider spontaneous generation an absurdity?

Please explain what part of 'I don't know' and the remainder of my post in which I told you 'I don't know' you are having difficulty understanding.

You could also take some time and explain what you understand and mean by 'spontaneous generation'.

 

[zeke]

You could also take some time and explain what you understand and mean by 'spontaneous generation'.

Life arising from non-life via naturalism - an absurdity. Do you consider spontaneous generation an absurdity? What is your definition of spontaneous generation?

 

[zeke]

Please show how it is wrong, how it is 'a statement of religion' and how it is 'based on unproven assumptions'.

If a scientist states that life arose from non-life is she presenting a statement of fact or a statement of religion? Think about it.

 

[Sparkey]

I think "I don't know," is the absolute best answer that I've heard and I'll tell you what, I don't hear it that often. The answer that appeals to me could never have been forced down my throat and I'll wager that isn't what God wants us to do at all.

 

[lordkalvan]

Life arising from non-life via naturalism - an absurdity.

Why is it 'an absurdity'? For example, can you distinguish for us what the significant differences are between life and non- life at the microscopic level?

Do you consider spontaneous generation an absurdity?

No more of an absurdity than life arising due to the direct intervention of a supernatural agent', which is why I replied 'I don't know' when you asked about the OOL in the first place.

What is your definition of spontaneous generation?

The only definition I am aware of is the one best exemplified by Aristotle, which supposed that life could emerge from things other than seeds, eggs or parents, e g from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, the insides of other animals, or even secretions from various organs. This idea was effectively falsified by Louis Pasteur and has nothing to do with modern theories of abiogenesis and the origin of self-replicating molecules.

More information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation, where I sourced this summary.

 

[lordkalvan]

If a scientist states that life arose from non-life is she presenting a statement of fact or a statement of religion? Think about it.

What does this have to do with the theory of evolution, which explains the diversity of life from an unspecified origin?

 

[lordkalvan]

I think "I don't know," is the absolute best answer that I've heard and I'll tell you what, I don't hear it that often. The answer that appeals to me could never have been forced down my throat and I'll wager that isn't what God wants us to do at all.

Thanks again, Sparrow. I'm glad you appreciate an honest answer given with the best of intentions.