Originally posted by googlefudgeI can believe in science and at the same time not believe in evolution. I am believing this right now.
You can't believe in science and not believe in evolution.
You can, not understand evolution, but claiming you believe in science necessitates believing in one of it's
greatest achievements.
If you believe in nothing else you would have to believe in evolution.
Evolution is not the start of something out of nothing.
The creation of life, from non ...[text shortened]... ested there are a wealth of resources on evolution on the web and in books that
explain it.
Abiogenesis forms part of the evolution process right? Thus because "that" part has a different word to describe "the process of life forming from non-life" does not take it out from evolution, but covers a very important factor - it is the way life formed or how life started it's existence on earth.
Becase Abiogenesis forms part of the evolution process it is evolution - period.
Now you've mentioned in a previous post "Actually abiogenesis has quite a lot of evidentiary and theoretical support. But it is not part of evolution. "
1. How can it not be part of evolution?
2. By stating there is enough evidentiary and theoretical support does not proof anything. It only proves life was there already.
You can not make life from non-life, it is impossible.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Nickstenno no no no no.
I can believe in science and at the same time not believe in evolution. I am believing this right now.
Abiogenesis forms part of the evolution process right? Thus because "that" part has a different word to describe "the process of life forming from non-life" does not take it out from evolution, but covers a very important factor - it is the way life for ...[text shortened]... proves life was there already.
You can not make life from non-life, it is impossible.
Evolution is a description of a process that describes something life does.
It does not, nor does it claim to, explain how life came into existence in the first place.
It never has, and never will.
That process is not described by a different word, it is described by a completely different theoretical explanation.
Originally posted by googlefudgeEvolution is the belief that all life came into existence or evolved from a
no no no no no.
Evolution is a description of a process that describes something life does.
It does not, nor does it claim to, explain how life came into existence in the first place.
It never has, and never will.
That process is not described by a different word, it is described by a completely different theoretical explanation.
common ancestor. The evolutionist can not prove to anyone that there
was a common ancestor or where it came from. Their excuse is that it
is not their job because how the common ancestor came into existence
is for someone else to find out. They can only speculate as to what this
common ancestor might have looked like. They say it might even be
extinct now but they believe by blind faith that it must have existed
because the fact that we are here today proves that we evolved from it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsAgain you are wrong.
Evolution is the belief that all life came into existence or evolved from a
common ancestor. The evolutionist can not prove to anyone that there
was a common ancestor or where it came from. Their excuse is that it
is not their job because how the common ancestor came into existence
is for someone else to find out. They can only speculate as to what thi ...[text shortened]... at it must have existed
because the fact that we are here today proves that we evolved from it.
In many ways but I will stick to this one central point I am trying to get you and those others claiming the same thing to understand.
If you are talking about science in general, there is a goal to attempt to explain how everything works and how the world/universe around
us came to be.
This task is not yet (and might not ever be) complete.
If one is talking about the existence of life and how it came to be in its many forms then of the many things to explain,
how life came into being is one of them.
The name for the process/processes for creating life from non life is abiogenesis.
This is a separate (although related) area of study from things that life does once it exists.
One thing life does is evolve.
This is covered by evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory talks about the process of evolution which is something life does.
It provides a mechanism by which life can evolve from very basic forms into the vast complexity of life we see today over the vast intervening
periods of time.
It says nothing about how those very first primitive life forms came to be in the first place for evolution to start working on them.
That is a separate field of study.
Often, although not always, done by different people with different specialities reflecting the different thing being studied.
Evolution does not have a problem because it doesn't explain how the first life form came to be because that is not what evolutionary theory is
for. It is not what it describes.
It would be like talking to someone who had just come up with a fantastic theory of how solar systems form and saying it's no good because it
doesn't explain how the universe came into being.... It isn't meant to explain how the universe came into being it's meant to explain how solar
systems form. Other theories cover the formation of the universe.
Evolution isn't meant to explain how the first life form came into existence.... it's meant to explain how you get from that one life form to all the
diversity of life you see today.
And it does this beautifully.
Also, you might want to check what it is biologists actually say before claiming what they say as evidence for your position.
Because what you wrote is total horse hockey.
You don't like evolution and abiogenesis because they contradict your holy book, and your faiths.
If you really feel like that then fine, keep thinking that.
But don't expect to make false claims about what other people say, think, know, and can demonstrate, in an attempt to back up your faith based position,
And not get both called on it, and ridiculed for it.
If you want to believe genesis despite all the evidence to the contrary then fine.
But don't claim the evidence isn't there because you don't want to admit your position is faith and not reason based.
Originally posted by googlefudgehttp://www.allaboutscience.org/abiogenesis.htm
Again you are wrong.
In many ways but I will stick to this one central point I am trying to get you and those others claiming the same thing to understand.
If you are talking about science in general, there is a goal to attempt to explain how everything works and how the world/universe around
us came to be.
This task is not yet (and might n ...[text shortened]... t there because you don't want to admit your position is faith and not reason based.
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evolution-vs-creation.htm
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't know what your point is but those websites are Christian propaganda websites, not science websites.
http://www.allaboutscience.org/abiogenesis.htm
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evolution-vs-creation.htm
They are also, and due to the above, wrong.
If you want to understand what evolution and abiogenesis are and how they work try getting your information from somewhere not run by a bunch of Christians seeking to discredit it.
Who Lie and dissemble to try to make their point.
Originally posted by AgergI dont like being in the same group as Dasa.....just saying it so that everyone knows it. I do agree with Dasa with regards to science being false in many ways, but i do not agree with his faith. Now that is out of the picture....good.
We have the 4 heavyweights of logic and reason: Dasa, RJHinds, RBHill, and Nickstein all in one thread. This will surely be stimulating stuff!
😞
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt does not make sence... abiogenesis is the process of how non-life became life. Then this life evolved into creating a better life form. Even though the two are different from each other, it does not provide enough evidence that it is not part of the bigger picture......evolution. Your focus is to take apart evolution and naming each step of the evolution process something different, thus the goal at the end of the day (from what i pick up) is to take away the focus that there is on evolution which is false from a Christian point of view. From other religions too i geuss.
Again you are wrong.
In many ways but I will stick to this one central point I am trying to get you and those others claiming the same thing to understand.
If you are talking about science in general, there is a goal to attempt to explain how everything works and how the world/universe around
us came to be.
This task is not yet (and might not ...[text shortened]... t there because you don't want to admit your position is faith and not reason based.
I say this again, i am open for you to show me how non-life can become life... I dont want to read stuff on how some scientist has written down good evidence that this abiogenesis process could be possible. Its these scientist that was paid millions to prove something exists which doesn't and to get their millions they write crap like "we came alive by something that had no life in it". Wow, what a monkey like statement.
We should get more scientist like for example Dr Kent Hovind in that industry so the world can open it's eyes and see the real truth about science, evolution and abiogenesis.
Not even to mention the mock towards God, Jesus and all other Christians to use the word genesis in their word abiogenesis. No no no people the start of life is not explained in the book of Genesis, but in Abiogenesis. What a way to make those millions!
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell, isn't it pure logic that a Christian would follow Christian like teachings? Why would i follow someones teachings which is false and against my religion? That will make me a hipocrate. They are only wrong because it does not your beliefs. You need to be open to it and understand their argument. You kinda asked the same of me in a previous post, didn't you?
I don't know what your point is but those websites are Christian propaganda websites, not science websites.
They are also, and due to the above, wrong.
If you want to understand what evolution and abiogenesis are and how they work try getting your information from somewhere not run by a bunch of Christians seeking to discredit it.
Who Lie and dissemble to try to make their point.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by NickstenEvolution is a scientific theory.
Well, isn't it pure logic that a Christian would follow Christian like teachings? Why would i follow someones teachings which is false and against my religion? That will make me a hipocrate. They are only wrong because it does not your beliefs. You need to be open to it and understand their argument. You kinda asked the same of me in a previous post, didn't you?
If you want to know what it is you should ask scientists.
Whether you believe in it or not, to understand what it is you have to ask the people who study/invented/discovered it.
I am not saying follow the teachings of someone else, I am saying to find out what the 'teachings' of someone else is you should
ask them not someone who opposes them.
Would you for example think it a good idea for me to find a Muslim to find out more about the bible and Christianity?
Do you think the picture of Christianity i would get from this person would accurately reflect what you believe/say?
Those websites are Christian propaganda, they are verifiably wrong in both what they say, and in what they claim other people say.
They are lying.
If you read and believe them you have been deceived.
They do not portray an accurate picture of either the science or what scientists say.
You are trying to win by falsely claiming evolution to be something it isn't.
it doesn't matter if you ultimately believe in evolution or not, it is still lying, and logically false, to argue against your opponent by
lying about what they are saying and arguing for.
This is a straw man fallacy.
As Christians are supposed to be about truth, this does make you a hypocrite.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by NickstenYou are talking complete gibberish.
It does not make sence... abiogenesis is the process of how non-life became life. Then this life evolved into creating a better life form. Even though the two are different from each other, it does not provide enough evidence that it is not part of the bigger picture......evolution. Your focus is to take apart evolution and naming each step of the evolution ...[text shortened]... not explained in the book of Genesis, but in Abiogenesis. What a way to make those millions!
Read my posts again with your brain switched on.
Evolution is something LIFE DOES.
Thus if you are trying to explain how NON LIFE became life it can't be part of evolution because you are not talking about life.
As soon as life does form however then it can and does start evolving.
Non-life becoming life is not part of evolution. It never has been.
Get over it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by NickstenIf you don't want to be classed in the same group as dasa, stop saying such intensely inane things.
I dont like being in the same group as Dasa.....just saying it so that everyone knows it. I do agree with Dasa with regards to science being false in many ways, but i do not agree with his faith. Now that is out of the picture....good.