How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[brunumb]

So did the carnivores have to eat meat or is that an adaption after the flood? A lion is said to be an animal that is not supposed to be able to live on plants and yet this one did.

Of all the lions in the world we get one that somehow survives without meat. Did they investigate how or why? It doesn't account for the entire population on the ark though, does it? So you suggest that vegetarian animals adapted to a drowned world by becoming carnivores? Carnivores with specific preference for their diet, as well as the herbivores mind you. There's an awful lot of spin required to get any of the flood story to hold water. It's nonsense from start to finish.

[JoeyKnothead]

So did the carnivores have to eat meat or is that an adaption after the flood? A lion is said to be an animal that is not supposed to be able to live on plants and yet this one did.

Of all the lions in the world we get one that somehow survives without meat. Did they investigate how or why? It doesn't account for the entire population on the ark though, does it? So you suggest that vegetarian animals adapted to a drowned world by becoming carnivores? Carnivores with specific preference for their diet, as well as the herbivores mind you. There's an awful lot of spin required to get any of the flood story to hold water. It's nonsense from start to finish.

Just think how much better it'd be if someone woulda just swatted them two mosquitoes.

[Clownboat]

So did the carnivores have to eat meat or is that an adaption after the flood? A lion is said to be an animal that is not supposed to be able to live on plants and yet this one did.

Of all the lions in the world we get one that somehow survives without meat. Did they investigate how or why? It doesn't account for the entire population on the ark though, does it? So you suggest that vegetarian animals adapted to a drowned world by becoming carnivores? Carnivores with specific preference for their diet, as well as the herbivores mind you. There's an awful lot of spin required to get any of the flood story to hold water. It's nonsense from start to finish.

Just think how much better it'd be if someone woulda just swatted them two mosquitoes.

They would have had to have been swatted it seems, as we are now learning from ESG that dragonflies were most likely herbivores... like lions.

There is a scientific word for feeding cats a vegan diet though. It's called, 'starving the little buggers' if I remember correctly.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #0]

Claims without evidence are meaningless and abiogenesis discusses how life began, not evolution.
You are a waste of time and not worthy of debate IMO if you will not make the effort to learn that which you try to debate against.

You are more than free to end the discussion. But I do have to address some mischaracterizations and blatant mistakes.

Here I said nothing about abiogenesis. I was simply stating evolutions starting assumption of life after abiogenesis.

This from a person that thinks evolution says that life began as a single cell.

Are you sure about this? Are you saying that Prokaryotes, which cyanobacteria are a member of, were not the first life on earth?

Maybe the theory of evolution theorizes that leprechauns were the first life on Earth. And then your make-believe theory could have theorized that it was the leprechauns that made the grass green. Who knows what you believe if you do not believe that the theory of evolution does not theorize that prokaryotes were the first life on earth?

"Evolutionary theory needs bottlenecks in its make-believe story about human evolution.
Well holy monkeys! It's make believe! Why didn't you say that earlier!

I have for years on this forum. And it looks like you have no answer for my argument that shows that evolution did not happen and could not happen. But appeals to authority are always convincing and comforting when someone has no answer to an argument.

We still talking about global floods, some tower of babeling or are we on to talking animals now?

I proved how not only does modern population genetics and natural selection theory prove that there had to be a global flood. But Biological evolutionists also say that there had to be mass extinctions. And the rock layers also indicate a global flood. So keep babbling on.

No need silly. Since evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations and such things happen in reality, it is demonstrated by reality.

Not outside of population genetics and Haldane's calculations, it has not even by the examples given in this debate so far.

If you believe in evolution you have faith that life began as a cell.
This is simply false. Again, you are a waste of time if you refuse to correct your faulty thinking.
Not a total waste though, as your posts do bring laughter and joy.

Leprachauns again eh. You are free to believe in your Leprachauns if you wish.

Sorry, but evolution happens on earth. Math is not even required in order to know this. How did bacteria evolve the ability to digest nylon? Did a god create a kind of bacteria that could digest something that humans had not created yet? Is that your explanation?

Well let's see nylon was started being made in 1935 and it was not until 1977 that this nylon bacteria was found to exist. That would be 42 years. For bacteria that would be over 1 million generations for one or 2 mutations.

Yea, the math shows that it takes way too many generations for evolution from bacteria to man to happen

Math is not even required in order to know this. Spoken like someone who puts their beliefs above modern science. Great quote thanks.

and that it is limited to occurring within a kind.
And here we see your religious beliefs affecting your reasoning.

That would be called an assumption. Just like evolution makes the assumption that life began as a single cell or leprechaun whatever

[JoeyKnothead]

...
But appeals to authority are always convincing and comforting when someone has no answer to an argument.
...

Says the cdesignpropentist

[Jose Fly]

Never Argue With a Fool, Onlookers May Not Be Able To Tell the Difference
--Mark Twain

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #0]

Claims without evidence are meaningless and abiogenesis discusses how life began, not evolution.
You are a waste of time and not worthy of debate IMO if you will not make the effort to learn that which you try to debate against.

You are more than free to end the discussion. But I do have to address some mischaracterizations and blatant mistakes.

Here I said nothing about abiogenesis. I was simply stating evolutions starting assumption of life after abiogenesis.

No, that's wrong. Darwin, for example, just assumed that God created the first living things. (last sentence in The Origin of Species) You see, no matter how life began, evolution would work exactly the way we see it working now.

Are you sure about this? Are you saying that Prokaryotes, which cyanobacteria are a member of, were not the first life on earth?

Evolutionary theory says nothing at all about that. And while all existing life so far has been shown to descend from prokaryotes, but that doesn't mean that prokaryotes were the first living things.

Maybe the theory of evolution theorizes that leprechauns were the first life on Earth. And then your make-believe theory could have theorized that it was the leprechauns that made the grass green. Who knows what you believe if you do not believe that the theory of evolution does not theorize that prokaryotes were the first life on earth?

That's what you keep struggling with. Evolutionary theory makes no such claims.

I have for years on this forum. And it looks like you have no answer for my argument that shows that evolution did not happen and could not happen.

As you now realize, it happens every day. We even have observed macroevolution to occur. Do you remember what biological evolution is? I think you've confused evolution with a consequence of evolution (common descent). Even if common descent were not true, evolution would still work the way we see it working.

I proved how not only does modern population genetics and natural selection theory prove that there had to be a global flood.

You've claimed that it does. But people who actually know how it works disagree with you. And natural selection is an observed phenomenon, not a theory. It's an agency of evolution, an observed fact.

But Biological evolutionists also say that there had to be mass extinctions.

The theory doesn't say so, but the evidence shows we've had a number of them with millions of years in between.

And the rock layers also indicate a global flood.

Your notion of where rock layers would be if a global flood happened, is refuted by the rock in the Grand Canyon. Would you like me to show you, again?

No need silly. Since evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations and such things happen in reality, it is demonstrated by reality.

Not outside of population genetics

In fact, population genetics shows how it happens. Thought you knew. Would you like to learn how we study the way information is gained by evolutionary processes?

and Haldane's calculations,

Even Haldane thought his calculations were faulty. And as you know, Kimura showed why.

Sorry, but evolution happens on earth. Math is not even required in order to know this. How did bacteria evolve the ability to digest nylon? Did a god create a kind of bacteria that could digest something that humans had not created yet? Is that your explanation?

Well let's see nylon was started being made in 1935 and it was not until 1977 that this nylon bacteria was found to exist. That would be 42 years. For bacteria that would be over 1 million generations for one or 2 mutations.

Because of the weird configuration of the nylon molecule, one biochemist supposed it would take about 0.8 million years to see an adaptation to utilize nylon. We don't know how long it was there until someone found it, but at most, it took 42 years. (nylon waste ponds came somewhat after nylon was developed, so even that's longer than it could have actually taken)

Yea, the math shows that it takes way too many generations for evolution from bacteria to man to happen

It took at least 1.5 billion years to evolve eukaryotes. That was the hard part. The rest came a lot easier for reasons I'm sure you would get, if you thought about it.

and that it is limited to occurring within a kind.

And your testable definition of "kind" is...?

That would be called an assumption. Just like evolution makes the assumption that life began as a single cell or leprechaun whatever

If you don't learn anything else here, go learn what evolutionary theory actually says. You'll be a lot more effective fighting science if you know what it is.

[The Barbarian]

Never Argue With a Fool, Onlookers May Not Be Able To Tell the Difference
--Mark Twain

I can't help it. Sometimes, it's just too much fun to let go.

And I'm a very patient guy...

[Jose Fly]

Never Argue With a Fool, Onlookers May Not Be Able To Tell the Difference
--Mark Twain

I can't help it. Sometimes, it's just too much fun to let go.

And I'm a very patient guy...

I never thought of that as being for you. Remember back at ToL when I would sometimes get frustrated with you for what I saw as you letting creationists off the hook? Well it took me a while, but I finally appreciated how, unlike me who was mainly focused on debate, your primary purpose was (and still is) to educate. So when a creationist would ignore what you posted, you were perfectly fine with moving on to the next item (because you'd already gotten the info out....whether the creationist acknowledged it was irrelevant).

So I don't see you as arguing with creationists as much as using them.

[Clownboat]

Claims without evidence are meaningless and abiogenesis discusses how life began, not evolution.
You are a waste of time and not worthy of debate IMO if you will not make the effort to learn that which you try to debate against.

You are more than free to end the discussion. But I do have to address some mischaracterizations and blatant mistakes.

Here I said nothing about abiogenesis. I was simply stating evolutions starting assumption of life after abiogenesis.

Evolution does not have a starting assumption. For all we know, a god created a bunch of life on earth and evolution took over from there.
I'm goint to end the discussion as you suggest as my time is precious to me and I feel you are wasting it.

Well let's see nylon was started being made in 1935 and it was not until 1977 that this nylon bacteria was found to exist. That would be 42 years. For bacteria that would be over 1 million generations for one or 2 mutations.

Readers, does it not amaze you how mutations are acknowledge and disregarded all in the same sentence?

Yea, the math shows that it takes way too many generations for evolution from bacteria to man to happen

Readers, do any of you actually believe that humans evolved from bacteria? How about eukaryotic cells possibly evolving from bacteria? Far different claim and much more reasonable.

Just like evolution makes the assumption that life began as a single cell or leprechaun whatever