Why male and female?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It matters, but not to the theory of evolution, which only requires the existence of a replicating, mutating agent interacting with some environment.

The theory is described as doing something for specific reasons, without
knowing how it began there is no way you can grasp why it is doing what
it is doing, the only thing you'd see is what it is doing.
Kelly

Originally posted by humy
No, we know that evolution is true because of the evidence (although there is also logical reasons to think it SHOULD happen given certain conditions/facts that nobody disputes are true).

Evolution is true regardless of how life got started [b]-even if it never did start!
Extremely hypothetically, if abiogenesis never happened, and lets say we discovere ...[text shortened]... bviously, that vast mountain consists of vastly more than just merely noting that life exists.[/b]

"No, we know that evolution is true because of the evidence (although there is also logical reasons to think it SHOULD happen given certain conditions/facts that nobody disputes are true)."

I'm not sure what you think no one disputes, but okay. When some say
evolution they are speaking of the small changes we can see now, others
it is the whole process of going from a single beginning of life to the variety
we see today...without going to deep into that, you really need to be very
clear on what claim is true without dispute.

If evolution is true regardless of how life started, wouldn't the processes
beginning tell us why it is doing what it is doing? Without that knowledge
the very acts may be due to random mutations along with natural selection
or by design. Flaws within life would be better understood with how it all
started.

"Evolution is true regardless of how life got started -even if it never did start! "

I'm really at a loss trying to understand your point here, if the process did
not start how could anyone see it? I can see if life started fully formed and
then started changing we would see it, since abiogenesis wouldn't be
required. That would lead us into other conversations about life!
Kelly

Originally posted by humy

So you are saying that you believe in abiogenesis, although you can't show that it happened by the Scientific Method.

Couldn't the use of just applying flawless logic on some trivial observations not be scientific method?

It is just a trivial observation that life exists and physically exists today.
Therefore, given that life exists, ogical deduction. Observation plus flawless logic is NEVER faith by the definition of faith!

Your blind faith is believing you know all about it when you don't. We are not saying that all life had a beginning for we believe God is life and has no beginning or end. We are saying life on Earth had a beginning and the universe had a beginning and the earth and universe was created by God. Life came from God not abiogenesis. So your logic is crap.

The Instructor

Originally posted by humy

It has already been proven that the universe had a beginning and that the earth had a beginning and that living things on the earth also had a beginning.

Can't you read you moron? I never said it wasn't proven. I said “[b]extremely hypothetically....”. The rest of your post is the usual pure crap.[/b]

Then there is no point to your “extremely hypothetically....” post and as usual, it is all pure crap.

The Instructor

Originally posted by KellyJay
The theory is described as doing something for specific reasons, without
knowing how it began there is no way you can grasp why it is doing what
it is doing, the only thing you'd see is what it is doing.
Kelly

Correct. And since we don't believe there is a why, its somewhat irrelevant. However the 'what its doing' is indisputable scientific fact, known as evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Then there is no point to your “[b]extremely hypothetically....” post and as usual, it is all pure crap.

The Instructor[/b]

The point of the "extremely hypothetically" was to logically prove via deduction that even if "extremely hypothetically" abiogenesis did not happen then that would do nothing to disprove or discredit evolution theory because there not being abiogenesis would only mean that life had no beginning thus life has always existed for an infinite period of time and evolution has been also going on for an infinite period of time. Of course, you are too thick to comprehend that proof let alone give any kind of intelligent response to that proof.

Originally posted by humy
The point of the "extremely hypothetically" was to logically prove via deduction that even if "extremely hypothetically" abiogenesis did not happen then that would do nothing to disprove or discredit evolution theory because there not being abiogenesis would only mean that life had no beginning thus life has always existed for an infinite period of time and evo ...[text shortened]... hick to comprehend that proof let alone give any kind of intelligent response to that proof.

There it is again... the infinite past neutralizes first cause argument.

I'm too think* to comprehend that as well, or maybe I just don't have enough faith in that idea to take it seriously... same difference.



* [unintentional transcription mistake]

Originally posted by twhitehead
What a turnaround. A moment ago, just about everything was a matter of faith.

[b]Science is not perfect. Our understanding is not perfect. I'm sure that at some level our understanding of planets, atoms, supernovas, virus' ect our understanding isn't exactly correct. In the future our understanding will be revised, just as science has been revising ...[text shortened]... ll known that science will never change with regards to them. Only small details will change.

Everything wasn't faith. Your belief in abiogenesis is faith. I hope that clears things up.

Originally posted by lemon lime
There it is again... the infinite past neutralizes first cause argument.

I'm too think* to comprehend that as well, or maybe I just don't have enough faith in that idea to take it seriously... same difference.



* [unintentional transcription mistake]

There it is again... the infinite past neutralizes first cause argument.

No, it isn't. The argument, which was also arguably a proof by deduction based on some trivial observations that no sane person would dispute, was OBVIOUSLY NOT that if time had no begging then this logically implies that life had no beginning but rather the argument was IF, extremely hypothetically, life had no beginning (and I am not saying that is a credible hypothesis, because, it isn't) then time must have no beginning (so you misrepresented the deduction in that argument by stating it as if it was completely back-to-front to the way it was actually stated) and this would also mean, for the reasons I gave not in that post but in an earlier post, that the evolution of life has been going on for all time.

Apparently then, you are too thick to understand the extremely simple argument as well.

Originally posted by lemon lime
There it is again... the infinite past neutralizes first cause argument.

I'm too think* to comprehend that as well, or maybe I just don't have enough faith in that idea to take it seriously... same difference.



* [unintentional transcription mistake]

I don't think anyone believes life has always been here, but it is you that is pushing for that alternative.
There are really only two possibilities:
1. Life has always existed.
2. Life has not always existed.
If 2. then life started at some point. Your argument is that if abiogenesis did not happen, then the theory of evolution has a problem ie that the theory of evolution depends on abiogenesis in some way. But this is obviously false. Because whether 1. or 2. is the case, at some point life existed on earth and since then it has been evolving. Now you may argue that in 2. life got here by some mechanism other than abiogenesis, but even then, the result is still life existing at some point, and then evolving. Hence the theory of evolution is in no way dependant on abiogenesis, although abiogenesis is a near certainty given the fact that life exists and could not have existed at the big bang.

Originally posted by Eladar
Everything wasn't faith. Your belief in abiogenesis is faith. I hope that clears things up.

No, I am afraid it doesn't clear things up. It seems to boil down to you saying: "I accept as science anything that doesn't conflict with my religion".
Do you agree with this? If not, please explain what you feel differentiates my understanding of abiogenesis from what you said was acceptable to you as science.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I am afraid it doesn't clear things up. It seems to boil down to you saying: "I accept as science anything that doesn't conflict with my religion".
Do you agree with this? If not, please explain what you feel differentiates my understanding of abiogenesis from what you said was acceptable to you as science.

No, I'm saying that science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God.

Science can only explain how things work. It is limited in that it can't speak to anything that it can't test. It can't test for or against the existance of God.

Simply because we assume that we are not God and that we can't perform miracles, that does not mean that God does not exist. God's actual existance or lack there of is simply an unproven assumption which brings with it a leap of faith. It is the nature of events that can't be witnessed nor reproduced.

Originally posted by humy

There it is again... the infinite past neutralizes first cause argument.

No, it isn't. The argument, which was also arguably a proof by deduction based on some trivial observations that no sane person would dispute, was OBVIOUSLY NOT that if time had no begging then this logically implies that life had no beginning but rather the argument ...[text shortened]... me.

Apparently then, you are too thick to understand the extremely simple argument as well.

I'm also too thick to see how that squares up with BB theory. I'm not a BB denier, so I would necessarily need to discard the idea of an infinite past having anything to do with beginning of life issues.

Originally posted by Eladar
No, I'm saying that science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God.

Then you have a very odd way of saying it, considering that the post that started this discussion nor any post since then till this one did not, as far as I recall, mention God at all.

Science can only explain how things work. It is limited in that it can't speak to anything that it can't test. It can't test for or against the existance of God.
That depends very much on the definition of 'God'. If he is defined has having no interaction with the universe, then I agree. If he is defined has having no specific interaction with the universe, then I agree that it might not be possible. However, if he is defined as having specific interactions with the universe then those interactions and thus his existence are well within the realm of science.

It is the nature of events that can't be witnessed nor reproduced.
So anything God does, cannot be witnessed nor reproduced? Thats very odd.
But yes, I agree that anything that is defined as undetectable and untestable is by its very nature undetectable and untestable. Though why we should bother about such things, I don't really know as they by definition have no impact whatsoever on us.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Then you have a very odd way of saying it, considering that the post that started this discussion nor any post since then till this one did not, as far as I recall, mention God at all.

Do you recall what you post?

Check out what you call point 6 in your description of infallable logic.