21 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouseThe dead giveaway that it does have something to do with evolution is the statement that he assembled a team of experts in the field, scientists recommended by their peers, to review the proposals that poured in. That means the scientists are evolutionists, numbnuts.
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-life-began.html
These guys are giving private money and grants for winning proposals for a scientific study of how life started and it has nothing to do with darwinian evolution.
21 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI really like the way your 'arguments' end in an ad hominem.
The dead giveaway that it does have something to do with evolution is the statement that he assembled a team of experts in the field, [b]scientists recommended by their peers, to review the proposals that poured in. That means the scientists are evolutionists, numbnuts. [/b]
Why does it matter if they are 'evolutionists' or not? Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, something you refuse to acknowledge.
The study of the origin of life is something way beyond the bounds of evolution and into the bounds of organic chemistry. It's really that simple.
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI see that you admit that no scientist would ever recommend a creationist for a scientific study. Interesting admission.
The dead giveaway that it does have something to do with evolution is the statement that he assembled a team of experts in the field, [b]scientists recommended by their peers, to review the proposals that poured in. That means the scientists are evolutionists, numbnuts. [/b]
21 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-life-began.html
These guys are giving private money and grants for winning proposals for a scientific study of how life started and it has nothing to do with darwinian evolution.
These guys are giving private money and grants for winning proposals for a scientific study of how life started and it has nothing to do with darwinian evolution.
If I had written that someone would have responded - "You poor uneducated fellow. Don't you know Darwinism has nothing to do with the origin of life anyway?"
So if that is the case why are they working on "a study of how life started and it has nothing to do with darwinian evolution?"
The article says:
Figuring out how life first started may seem like it should be simple—after all, life is everywhere on Earth. But the search is really far more complicated.
For one thing, scientists can't actually work backward. McKay explained that Darwinian evolution, the dominant process on the planet, involves self-replication, a process only found in living things, and thus can't be responsible for the original creation of life.
Hey. I thought only creationists were suppose to say those kinds of irrelevant things.
C'mon guys! Altogether now
"Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE! "
21 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThat is the point we have been trying to get into people's minds, that evolution and origins are two completely separate subjects. I don't understand what logical barrier there is for creationists to get that point. Would they be thinking creationism is destroyed if the scientific origin of life is separated from evolution? What?These guys are giving private money and grants for winning proposals for a scientific study of how life started and it has nothing to do with darwinian evolution.
If I had written that someone would have responded - "You poor uneducated fellow. Don't you know Darwinism has nothing to do with the origin of life anyway?"
So if that is the origin of life.
EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE! " [/b]
Maybe for creationists the origin of life study is even more contentious than evolution?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse"Maybe for creationists the origin of life study is even more contentious than evolution?"
That is the point we have been trying to get into people's minds, that evolution and origins are two completely separate subjects. I don't understand what logical barrier there is for creationists to get that point. Would they be thinking creationism is destroyed if the scientific origin of life is separated from evolution? What?
Maybe for creationists the origin of life study is even more contentious than evolution?
They are seen as similar threats in the same battle, the battle over Biblical inerrancy. The fact that you want to treat them as separate, is suspicious to these folks. The only reason to treat them separately would be if there were an advantage in a divide-and-conquer tactic, and they may suspect that this advantage would go to you.
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by JS357It isn't that I don't WANT to treat them as separate entities, it is they ARE separate entities. How could it be otherwise? The study of evolution is inherent in the very word used to describe that science, evolution, evolving.
"Maybe for creationists the origin of life study is even more contentious than evolution?"
They are seen as similar threats in the same battle, the battle over Biblical inerrancy. The fact that you want to treat them as separate, is suspicious to these folks. The only reason to treat them separately would be if there were an advantage in a divide-and-conquer tactic, and they may suspect that this advantage would go to you.
There is no reference to the word "Start" in all that. Origin of life studies may come to completely different conclusions than anyone ever imagined including the possibility an alien 1 billion years ago pooped on our planet or added life forms deliberately, that is something we could maybe even prove given enough evidence which of course begs the original question of where life really started.
If it turned out we are here because some alien pooped on our planet 1 billion years ago, then life started somewhere else and we would be back to square one.
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouse
That is the point we have been trying to get into people's minds, that evolution and origins are two completely separate subjects. I don't understand what logical barrier there is for creationists to get that point. Would they be thinking creationism is destroyed if the scientific origin of life is separated from evolution? What?
Maybe for creationists the origin of life study is even more contentious than evolution?
That is the point we have been trying to get into people's minds, that evolution and origins are two completely separate subjects.
Tell it to the magazine that published that article.
There was no need to even mention Evolution.
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by jaywillOf course they know that, the point is trying to get that point across to creationists like RJ.That is the point we have been trying to get into people's minds, that evolution and origins are two completely separate subjects.
Tell it to the magazine that published that article.
There was no need to even mention Evolution.
Were you being sarcastic in your earlier post? Or do you really believe origins and evolution are separate sciences?
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouseGod is the origin of life. He says so in the Holy Bible.
Of course they know that, the point is trying to get that point across to creationists like RJ.
Were you being sarcastic in your earlier post? Or do you really believe origins and evolution are separate sciences?
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouseThose two fall under one particular category: Ideas that contradict a widespread literal YEC reading of the Bible. That category of consists of things that are contradictory to the Bible, are Satan inspired, etc. The things that differentiate them from one another are unimportant compared to this.
It isn't that I don't WANT to treat them as separate entities, it is they ARE separate entities. How could it be otherwise? The study of evolution is inherent in the very word used to describe that science, evolution, evolving.
There is no reference to the word "Start" in all that. Origin of life studies may come to completely different conclusions than ...[text shortened]... et 1 billion years ago, then life started somewhere else and we would be back to square one.
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouseI have said many times that there is no such thing as evolution. What you guys call evolution is adaptation and Darwin saw adaptation by natural selection. He did not say that was evolution in his book on origin of species. It was only at the very end that he purposed the possiblity that all species on earth may have evolved from one single cell common ancestor. Most evolutionists, that I have had discussions with, deny this is what evolution means, since they have never seen one kind of creature change into another kind of creature. They stick to the idea that evolution is only adaptation by natural selection when one species (kind) changes within its own species (kind). Some call that micro-evolution. To me it is just a fancy name for adaptation.
That's fine as a working hypothesis. Now you have to prove it. So you are admitting origin of life is a separate issue from evolution?
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhousethe reason they have a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between the two is because "creationism" is an origins theory (albeit a broken one, but nevertheless) and creationists constantly try to associate their arguments of origins against evolution theory which is a completely different field.
That is the point we have been trying to get into people's minds, that evolution and origins are two completely separate subjects. I don't understand what logical barrier there is for creationists to get that point. Would they be thinking creationism is destroyed if the scientific origin of life is separated from evolution? What?
Maybe for creationists the origin of life study is even more contentious than evolution?
if they're confused all the way at the top, it's no wonder that the layman would also be confused on the subject.