Originally posted by @lemon-limeEvolution and abiogenesis and big bang are not the same thing. You can't use one of them to explain the other. Everyone knows that, or else there is a big 'ignorance alert'.
... But if you're trying to completely divorce the evolution of living cells from the first living cell (as though it wasn't necessary for there to be a first living organism) then I'm not buying your argument.
...
What you don't seem to understand is that you are drawing attention to the weakest link in evolutionary theory... the starting point.
"Can you explain the trinity using the national economics theories? No? Then you're wrong and will go to hell eventually!" is the same thing. Using a theory that is not meant to explain everything.
Do you really know that abiogenesis and evolution is two different theories? Or are you showing ignorance to have a chance to come to heaven?
Originally posted by @fabianfnasDo you really know that abiogenesis and evolution is two different theories?
Evolution and abiogenesis and big bang are not the same thing. You can't use one of them to explain the other. Everyone knows that, or else there is a big 'ignorance alert'.
"Can you explain the trinity using the national economics theories? No? Then you're wrong and will go to hell eventually!" is the same thing. Using a theory that is not meant to e ...[text shortened]... tion is two different theories? Or are you showing ignorance to have a chance to come to heaven?
I said:
"The distinction is that selection was not involved in the formation of the first living cell."
What part of that do you disagree with?
Originally posted by @lemon-limeBefore life there was no evolution. During the formation of the first life there was only, *only*, abiogenesis. After abiogenesis, and life was formed, evolution kicked in.
[b]Do you really know that abiogenesis and evolution is two different theories?
I said:
"The distinction is that selection was not involved in the formation of the first living cell."
What part of that do you disagree with?[/b]
What part of that do you have to learn more about?
Your underlying thought process is being unintentionally revealed.
While our thought life is important, it is important for reasons other than the one you are suggesting.
No one is saved (or lost) as a result of what they think, save on one (and only one) topic.
All other topics--- even seemingly crucial and critical ones--- are inconsequential.
Despite the insistence by those drunk on knowledge-lust, what a person thinks about the physical world is almost entirely inconsequential.
Beyond the common sense basics involving an assurance of safety, very few exceptions can be applied to the principle: most of the knowledge we’ve accumulated via our own means is, ultimately, inconsequential and--- in the atheist’s worldview--- meaningless.
A dolt with an intelligence of a pure bred parakeet is on the same level field as a PhD in astrophysics, in terms of the value of their knowledge.
The pursuit of understanding the universe will:
• Never be accomplished
• Never satisfy ALL of man’s questions
The dolt doesn’t care, enjoys life without the burden of those answers to those questions which are the equivalent of consuming ocean water to quench one’s thirst.
However, ignorance is not the key to entering heaven any more than the contents of one’s thoughts can be relied upon for entrance.
With respect to salvation, one either accepts the gift of the Christ’s work on the cross or rejects the same.
That person’s theology afterwards has no bearing on the question of salvation.
Here--- just as with the dolt and the astrophysicist--- the one who accepted the gift without furthering his theological understanding is on the same level with the one who accepted the gift and aggressively pursued the revelation supplied from God: they both have salvation.
The idea that knowledge of any kind carries with it some purported value which supersedes all other values is a lie, straight from hell.
Originally posted by @lemon-lime
I understand the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution. The distinction is that selection was not involved in the formation of the first living cell. That's fine, I don't have a problem with that. But if you're trying to completely divorce the evolution of living cells from the first living cell (as though it wasn't necessary for there to be a fi ...[text shortened]... ook behind the curtain" the worst thing you can do is tell them "don't look behind the curtain".
But if you're trying to completely divorce the evolution of living cells from the first living cell (as though it wasn't necessary for there to be a first living organism) then I'm not buying your argument.
the argument is clearly NOT that biogenesis is unnecessary for evolution to then happen; the fact remains one is NOT the other and you would have to be completely stupid not to comprehend that.
Originally posted by @freakykbh
Your underlying thought process is being unintentionally revealed.
While our thought life is important, it is important for reasons other than the one you are suggesting.
No one is saved (or lost) as a result of what they think, save on one (and only one) topic.
All other topics--- even seemingly crucial and critical ones--- are inconsequential.
Des ...[text shortened]... ies with it some purported value which supersedes all other values is a lie, straight from hell.
Despite the insistence by those drunk on knowledge-lust...
so you hate people wanting and trying to know things, such as the world being round and not flat like your insist it is.
Clearly you don't want people to know the truth but rather be stupid and ignorant. Without people wanting and trying to know things (what you call "drunk on knowledge-lust" ) your computer that you used to send this message wouldn't ever have been invented and we all will be still in the stone age and have short brutal lives in total ignorance. You have benefited from science in many ways and yet condemn those that gave you such benefits because you cannot stand people knowing things against your beliefs, such as the Earth being round and not flat.
Originally posted by @humyYou're too kind.Despite the insistence by those drunk on knowledge-lust...
so you hate people wanting and trying to know things, such as the world being round and not flat like your insist it is.
Clearly you don't want people to know the truth but rather be stupid and ignorant. Without people wanting and trying to know things (what you call "drunk on know ...[text shortened]... ot stand people knowing things against your beliefs, such as the Earth being round and not flat.
Originally posted by @humyI never said they are the same thing, but there is clearly a direct link between abiogenesis and evolution.But if you're trying to completely divorce the evolution of living cells from the first living cell (as though it wasn't necessary for there to be a first living organism) then I'm not buying your argument.
the argument is clearly NOT that biogenesis is unnecessary for evolution to then happen; the fact remains one is NOT the other and you would have to be completely stupid not to comprehend that.
I'm not aware of any evolutionist who believes otherwise. From the evolutionist's perspective, if there was no first living organism (abiogenesis) from which other forms of life could have evolved then we would not (because we could not) be having this conversation.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeDoesn't matter if they have a link, strong or weak, it's not the same and shouldn't be treated the same way.
I never said they are the same thing, but there is clearly a direct link between abiogenesis and evolution.
I'm not aware of any evolutionist who believes otherwise. From the evolutionist's perspective, if there was no first living organism (abiogenesis) from which other forms of life could have evolved then we would not (because we could not) be having this conversation.
There is a link between multiplication and division, but anyone knows that 5/3 is not the same as 5*3.
Anyone protesting against this just shows ignorance.
"if there was no first living organism (abiogenesis) from which other forms of life could have evolved"
If there wasn't any big bang, then there would be any national economics.
Conclusion: You can describe national economics in terms of big bang theory.
Do you realize how far you are from the track?
Only for those here that are interested in real science rather than just trolling against science;
Discovery of a new species evolved in just the last 200 years;
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-scientists-shetland.html
It has evolved via the doubling of its number of chromosomes from the species called yellow monkeyflower. One implication of that doubling of its number of chromosomes, and this is in addition to other changes to its characteristics such as larger leaves, is that it is impossible for it to cross-breed with the species it evolved from thus making it a truly new species by any reasonable definition of new species.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasIf there wasn't any big bang, then there would be any national economics.
Doesn't matter if they have a link, strong or weak, it's not the same and shouldn't be treated the same way.
There is a link between multiplication and division, but anyone knows that 5/3 is not the same as 5*3.
Anyone protesting against this just shows ignorance.
"if there was no first living organism (abiogenesis) from which other forms of lif ...[text shortened]... national economics in terms of big bang theory.
Do you realize how far you are from the track?
Conclusion: You can describe national economics in terms of big bang theory.
Do you realize how far you are from the track?
Do you realise just how far off track you need to go in order to make it appear I've gone off track?
Originally posted by @humyhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
Only for those here that are interested in real science rather than just trolling against science;
Discovery of a new species evolved in just the last 200 years;
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-scientists-shetland.html
It has evolved via the doubling of its number of chromosomes from the species called yellow monkeyflower. One implication of that doublin ...[text shortened]... it evolved from thus making it a truly new species by any reasonable definition of new species.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeNo 'selection' but trillions of little chemical 'experiments', random reactions that proceeded to make more and more complex chemicals that led to life, that is the prevailing science answer. And the feeling is once cells started, a lot of different cells developed at the same time and then selection took place weeding out the weakest.
[b]Do you really know that abiogenesis and evolution is two different theories?
I said:
"The distinction is that selection was not involved in the formation of the first living cell."
What part of that do you disagree with?[/b]
But evolution as we know it, the science of evolution does not have to know where life came from by definition, they follow the changes of life after it is already here. None of your mealy mouthed objections can change that absolute fact jack.
Originally posted by @humySpoken like a true scientist.But if you're trying to completely divorce the evolution of living cells from the first living cell (as though it wasn't necessary for there to be a first living organism) then I'm not buying your argument.
the argument is clearly NOT that biogenesis is unnecessary for evolution to then happen; the fact remains one is NOT the other and you would have to be completely stupid not to comprehend that.