Go back
Abiogenesis Fact?

Abiogenesis Fact?

Science

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @eladar
Why is changing a point of view always a good thing.
Changing your mind is a virtue. It means that you take evidence seriously. It means you can allow yourself to be changed by someone else's mind-set. It means that you treat debate as a learning exercise.

It seems that you are on here just to lecture, not to learn. What's the point?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @eladar
But you can't convince most people that evolution is true without abiogenesis.
Darwin did it.


Originally posted by @wildgrass
Darwin did it.
I guess most people back then didn't consider how life came into being. Perhaps they were a bunch of simpletons.


Originally posted by @eladar
I guess most people back then didn't consider how life came into being. Perhaps they were a bunch of simpletons.
Maybe.

Or... or.... or...

they understood that the theory of evolution could be true regardless of life's origins?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Maybe.

Or... or.... or...

they understood that the theory of evolution could be true regardless of life's origins?
Could be true, or is true?

You like to walk that line, then retreat back. You are like the North Vietnamese hiding out in Cambodia.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @eladar
Could be true, or is true?

You like to walk that line, then retreat back. You are like the North Vietnamese hiding out in Cambodia.
Your a teacher?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
Your a teacher?
must be a bad one.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @eladar
Could be true, or is true?

You like to walk that line, then retreat back. You are like the North Vietnamese hiding out in Cambodia.
Darwin's evidence in the 1830's focused on and documented patterns that connect and distinguish species from each other, variation and inheritance and unique animal features in specific environments. Evolution was the mechanism that explained the patterns.

That was before Lucy or genetics or molecular biology, of course, all lines of evidence which further support the theory. As far as I know no other mechanism that explains the observed patterns has been tested so thoroughly. All the other theories that were being batted around at the time seem to be more or less refuted and/or incorporated into evolution.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
Your a teacher?
Your means it belongs to me.

You are is you're.

There, a free lesson from a teacher.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Darwin's evidence in the 1830's focused on and documented patterns that connect and distinguish species from each other, variation and inheritance and unique animal features in specific environments. Evolution was the mechanism that explained the patterns.

That was before Lucy or genetics or molecular biology, of course, all lines of evidence which fur ...[text shortened]... ng batted around at the time seem to be more or less refuted and/or incorporated into evolution.
So you are saying Darwin never saw macro evolution.

Perhaps you could produce an example of abiogenesis, or are we to accept it by faith.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @humy
must be a bad one.
I don't know, I was explain to you why a reduced form of a rational is not exactly the same as the original.

The bad teacher was your original teacher who was unable to make that point clear.


Originally posted by @eladar
So you are saying Darwin never saw macro evolution.

Perhaps you could produce an example of abiogenesis, or are we to accept it by faith.
We are not accepting anything by faith. Macroevolution occurs, by definition, over long periods of time. Longer than recorded history.

We are, however, agreed that you do not need to physically see something happening to know that it happened.(i.e. dead squirrel) Nor do we need to see it in real time to provide a reasonable, evidence-based theory for how it happened. It's not faith, but not fact either. It's science!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @eladar
I don't know, I was explain to you why a reduced form of a rational is not exactly the same as the original.
Judging from your above English so bad I don't know what you are talking about and I bet nobody else does, you would make a very bad English teacher. + You explained to me nothing.


Originally posted by @wildgrass
We are not accepting anything by faith. Macroevolution occurs, by definition, over long periods of time. Longer than recorded history.

We are, however, agreed that you do not need to physically see something happening to know that it happened.(i.e. dead squirrel) Nor do we need to see it in real time to provide a reasonable, evidence-based theory for how it happened. It's not faith, but not fact either. It's science!
Macroevolution occurs, by definition.

As long as you take things by definition, there is not questioning it.

You take it as fact, by definition without actually seeing it happen. You accept it by faith.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @eladar
Macroevolution occurs, by definition.

As long as you take things by definition, there is not questioning it.

You take it as fact, by definition without actually seeing it happen. You accept it by faith.
Did you read what I wrote?