Do dead dogs stay dead dogs? TSZ’s Seversky says “no”, Neil not far behind
|March 20, 2014||Posted by scordova under Humor, News|
Comments by Skeptical Zone evolutionists are a never ending source of entertainment. I made what I thought was a simple, indisputable statement:
I don’t see dead cells evolving into living ones. A dead dog stays a dead dog. Law of biogenesis, etc.
But far be it for an evolutionist to ever be seen agreeing with a creationist on the most basic truths. In response to my claim, “A dead dog stays a dead dog,” Severky says,
No, it doesn’t.
Serversky justifies his claim by saying how a dead dog doesn’t stay a dead dog if its dead body parts get digested by another living organism. What about the dog’s memories and experiences, everything that defines the dog. Where did that go when it got turned to dog meat and became Obama’s happy meal?
Could Serversky then claim, “if dead dogs don’t stay dead dogs, neither do cannibalized humans stay dead humans”. If that were the case, then the cannibal Jeffery Dahmer wasn’t a murderer! Extrapolatiing Serverky’s perversky worldview, Dahmer’s victims didn’t remain dead, they lived on in Jeffrey Dahmer.
How about the Neil Rickert solution to abiogenesis and evolution:
stcordova: I don’t see dead cells evolving into living ones.
I am eating some bread (dead wheat). And, that will make the dead wheat into part of living human cells.
So in Neal Rickert’s view, digestion counts as an example of dead cells evolving into living ones. Consumption as a mechanism of evolution? A cow turns into hamburgers turns into Paris Hilton — a new form of abiogenesis and macro evolution!
Evolution is about the evolution of the structure of matter, not the transfer of matter from one structure to another. Usually evolution means a parent has offspring and the descendant is modified. In the case of mindless OOL, chemical evolution is lifeless chemicals self-assembling into a living organism without aid of pre-existing life or intelligence.
Neil has totally redefined these notions of evolution and OOL to include digestion as mechanism. He equivocated a plain sense reading of what I meant into some strange notion of what it means for life to evolve from non-life. I was talking about OOL after all, not digestion. 🙄 I was talking about the inability of an isolated dead cell to reassemble itself (Jonathan Wells’ Humpty Dumpty scenario).
They could have said, “The OOL problem is serious for the reasons you illustrated, but it doesn’t mean ID is true.” But nooo, Sal is a creationist and they can’t concede one micron of ground. If Sal says, “a dead dog stays a dead dog”, they’ll have to find a way to disagree on something so simple even if it makes them look a little kooky.
Does a dead dog stay a dead dog? According to Seversky:
No, it doesn’t.
And Neil isn’t far behind. And did anyone over yonder at TSZ bother challenging Serverky’s claims?
1. I thought we’d seen it all in terms of outrageous claims: Law of Large Numbers vs. Keiths and Jerad and Neil Riekert Double Down and A Statistics Question for Nick Matzke. Serversky’s is now the top of the list.
2. I mentioned Paris Hilton because she got arrested while driving to buy a burger. The arrest had some connection to a DUI charge. So I presume she’s eaten the product of dead cows before, plus in the glory days of UD, Bill Dembski had a post in 2006 that showed a parody of Paris Hilton’s burger commercials: Darwinists need to recruit Paris Hilton (the links in Bill’s post have died, here is the accolo recruiting video Bill was showing to highlight the point that at the time Darwinists were behaving in very unattractive ways to garner public favor: parody of Paris Hilton’s burger commercial. So that’s partly why I seem to recall the Burger/Paris Hilton connection from Bill’s earlier post.
4. Jonathan Wells’ Humpty Dumpty scenario:
If we place a small amount of sterile salt solution in a test tube at just the right temperature and acidity, add a living cell, and then poke a hole in that cell with a sterile needle, the contents will leak out. We will have in our test tube all of the molecules needed for life, in just the right proportions (relative to each other) and already assembled into complex specified DNAs, RNAs, proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates. But we will not be able to make a living cell out of them. We cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again.