@KellyJay saidEvolution is a theory because everything scientific is up for debate. However, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
This is you telling me what my whole point was, without directly touching the point, instead of my motivation. You have science that promotes the idea that life comes from mud or anything else; present the evidence.
Rejecting evolution would be like an architect rejecting the theory of concrete, or an astronomer rejecting heliocentrism.
It's not possible to have a conversation about biology (the scientific discipline) unless you accept evolution.
@wildgrass saidNo design is a better explnation looking at what is actually known.
Evolution is a theory because everything scientific is up for debate. However, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Rejecting evolution would be like an architect rejecting the theory of concrete, or an astronomer rejecting heliocentrism.
It's not possible to have a conversation about biology (the scientific discipline) unless you accept evolution.
@wildgrass saidYou can not explain the informational content that drives the formation and features in life, using any methodology that is unguided and blind no matter how much time you have! I will grant you all you want it will not help you.
Nonsense gobbledy gook.
@KellyJay saidYes I can. Evolution is the key ingredient.
You can not explain the informational content that drives the formation and features in life, using any methodology that is unguided and blind no matter how much time you have! I will grant you all you want it will not help you.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidYou are very circular, information guides the processes! The discussion between creation and evolution is solved according to you by saying evolution is true? That does not describe how information got into life by an unguided process, while it is common knowledge minds do that type of thing all the time.
Yes I can. Evolution is the key ingredient.
So please give some specific details how all the functional complexity got into life.
@KellyJay saidI did not say evolution was solved. I wrote that biology doesn't make sense except in light of evolution. You can believe in creationism but science doesn't care and shouldn't care. Evolution is consistent with religious principles, too, so there's no reason for creation theory to exist.
You are very circular, information guides the processes! The discussion between creation and evolution is solved according to you by saying evolution is true? That does not describe how information got into life by an unguided process, while it is common knowledge minds do that type of thing all the time.
So please give some specific details how all the functional complexity got into life.
@wildgrass saidNo, the Athestic model of life does not make sense without evolution. It requires astronomical odds being overcome for the vast array of life, so that for each life form, with all the forms and features in each get coded correctly constantly, while at the same time, be flexible enough to altered itself into other life without dying. What could go wrong!
I did not say evolution was solved. I wrote that biology doesn't make sense except in light of evolution. You can believe in creationism but science doesn't care and shouldn't care. Evolution is consistent with religious principles, too, so there's no reason for creation theory to exist.
You have to use it to defend Atheism to get Abiogenesis, then explain how chaos produces constancy, so that each cell replication could occur to preform the nessary work.
How did instruction in life get there to work in a law like manner? None of that is an issue when a mind is involved.
@KellyJay saidI don't know what abiogenesis has to do with evolution?
No, the Athestic model of life does not make sense without evolution. It requires astronomical odds being overcome for the vast array of life, so that for each life form, with all the forms and features in each get coded correctly constantly, while at the same time, be flexible enough to altered itself into other life without dying. What could go wrong!
You have to use i ...[text shortened]... n in life get there to work in a law like manner? None of that is an issue when a mind is involved.
@wildgrass saidYou can accept creation and evolution which is life startling life, or Atheism and Abiogenesis as that means life from non-life which would be the only way dead things becoming alive could be true without God.
I don't know what abiogenesis has to do with evolution?
@KellyJay saidThe theory of evolution does not take a position on the origin of life. Don't conflate the two things.
You can accept creation and evolution which is life startling life, or Atheism and Abiogenesis as that means life from non-life which would be the only way dead things becoming alive could be true without God.
Kind of like how thermodynamics doesn't explain how an engine was made. But it does explain how it works.
@wildgrass saidIf you define evolution as an unguided process yes you do!
The theory of evolution does not take a position on the origin of life. Don't conflate the two things.
Kind of like how thermodynamics doesn't explain how an engine was made. But it does explain how it works.
@wildgrass saidYou take the position life came from non-life that is the meaning of the word Abiogenesis A = not, bio = life Genesis = beginning. Your starting place dictates the whole, do you think you can ignore that and understand it all?
Yes I do what?
@KellyJay saidNo I was referring to evolution from your original post. You have changed the entire subject.
You take the position life came from non-life that is the meaning of the word Abiogenesis A = not, bio = life Genesis = beginning. Your starting place dictates the whole, do you think you can ignore that and understand it all?